ReviewFrontiers in surgery2022
Can a reresection be avoided after initial
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current opinions regarding the clinical utility of en bloc resection in the treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer-a review of the literature.Discover oncology · 2024Review
- Therapeutic bacteria and viruses to combat cancer: double-edged sword in cancer therapy: new insights for future.Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2024Review
- Role of repeat transurethral resection in no-muscle-invasive bladder tumour: an umbrella review.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2024Article
- A 10-year renaissance of en bloc resection of bladder tumors (ERBT): Are we approaching the peak or is it back to the trough?World journal of urology · 2023Review
- Will repeat resection after initial transurethral en bloc resection benefit patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer? A propensity score matching analysis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Material and methods: We conducted research in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to October 12, 2021, to identify studies on the second resection after initial Results: A total of 8 studies involving 414 participants were included. The rate of detrusor muscle in the ERBT specimens was 100% (95%CI: 100%-100%), the rate of tumor residual in reresection specimens was 3.2% (95%CI: 1.4%-5.5%), and the rate of tumor upstaging was 0.3% (95%CI: 0%-1.5%). Two articles compared the prognostic data of the reresection and non-reresection groups after the initial ERBT. We found no significant difference in the 1-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate (OR = 1.44, 95%CI: 0.67-3.09, Conclusions: ERBT can almost completely remove the detrusor muscle of the tumor bed with a very low postoperative tumor residue and upstaging rate. For high-risk NMIBC patients, an attempt to appropriately reduce the use of reresection after ERBT seems to be possible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.