Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35244986›Full record

SynthesisInvestigative and clinical urology2022

Tumor enucleation for the treatment of T1 renal tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hyun Chul Chung, Tae Wook Kang, Joon Young Lee, Eu Chang Hwang, Hong Jun Park, Jun Eul Hwang, Ki Don Chang, Young Hwan Kim, Jae Hung Jung

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Investigative and clinical urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. How far has robot-assisted partial nephrectomy reached?Investigative and clinical urology · 2023
    Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hyun Chul ChungDepartment of Urology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-3450-7817
Tae Wook KangDepartment of Urology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-4236-0664
Joon Young LeeDepartment of Nephrology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8047-4190
Eu Chang HwangDepartment of Urology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-2031-124X
Hong Jun ParkCenter of Evidence Based Medicine, Institute of Convergence Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-9320-9978
Jun Eul HwangDepartment of Hematology-Oncology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-3768-4149
Ki Don ChangDepartment of Urology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5817-8221
Young Hwan KimDepartment of Urology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-9893-7429
Jae Hung JungDepartment of Urology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-4990-7098
Yonsei University · KRChonnam National University Hwasun Hospital · KR

Funding

Yonsei University
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of tumor enucleation (TE) compared with partial nephrectomy (PN) for T1 renal cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND

methodsAccording to protocol, we searched multiple data sources for published and unpublished randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies (NRSs) in any language. We performed systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and rated the certainty of the evidence (CoE) using the GRADE framework.

resultsWe are uncertain about the effects of TE on perioperative (mean difference [MD] 3.38, 95% CI 1.52 to 5.23; I²=68%; 4 NRSs; 942 participants; very low CoE) and long-term (MD 2.31, 95% CI -1.40 to 6.01; I²=57%; 4 NRSs; 542 participants; very low CoE) residual renal function. TE may result in little to no difference in short-term residual renal function (MD 1.04, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.83; I²=0%; 2 NRSs; 256 participants; low CoE). We are uncertain about the effects of TE on cancer-specific mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.90, 95% CI: 0.11 to 7.28; I²=0%; 2 NRSs; 551 participants; very low CoE) and major adverse events (RR 0.48, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.79; I²=0%; 10 NRS; 2,360 participants; very low CoE).

conclusionsWhile TE appears to have similar effects on short term postoperative residual renal function, there were uncertainties on mortality and major adverse events. However, we need rigorous RCTs to elucidate the effects of TE as the evidence stems mostly from NRSs.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellKidney NeoplasmsDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMaleNephrectomyPostoperative PeriodNephrectomyRenal cell carcinomaSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35244986
PMCPMC8902429
OpenAlexW4214539746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.