ReviewBJUI compass2023
Oncological and functional outcomes of organ-preserving cystectomy versus standard radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in BJUI compass, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pelvic organ-sparing robot-assisted radical cystectomy in women with bladder cancer.BJU international · 2025Article
- Long-term outcomes in patients with intracorporeal robot-assisted pyramid neobladder.BJUI compass · 2025Article
- Impact of late effects after treatment for bladder cancer with radical cystectomy on Quality of life: a case-control study.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Article
- Long-term Outcomes of Prostate Capsule-Sparing and Nerve-Sparing Radical Cystectomy With Neobladder: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison.International neurourology journal · 2024Article
- Oncological outcomes of organ-sparing cystectomy versus standard radical cystectomy in male patients diagnosed with bladder cancer.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Long-term follow-up results of prostate capsule-sparing and nerve-sparing radical cystectomy with neobladder: a single-center retrospective analysis.Frontiers in urology · 2024Article
- Oncological and functional outcomes of organ-preserving cystectomy versus standard radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.BJUI compass · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Radical cystectomy (RC) is historically considered the gold standard treatment for muscle invasive and high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. However, this technique leaves the majority of patients of both sexes with poor sexual and urinary function. Organ-sparing cystectomy (OSC) techniques are emerging as an alternative to the standard procedure to preserve these functions, without compromising the oncological outcomes. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched for eligible studies on 6 April 2021. Primary outcomes studied were both oncological outcomes, specifically overall recurrence, and functional outcomes, specifically sexual function, and daytime and nighttime continence. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. The PROSPERO registration reference number was CRD42018118897. Results: From 13 894 identified abstracts, 19 studies (1886 male and 305 female patients) were eligible for inclusion in this review. These studies included patients who underwent either whole prostate, prostate capsule, seminal vesicle, nerve, uterus, ovary, vagina and fallopian tube sparing techniques. Four studies included only female patients.Thirteen studies reported oncological outcomes, and overall recurrence rate was similar between the two groups (five studies; OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.38-1.40, Conclusion: In carefully selected patients, OSC allows the potential to provide better sexual and urinary function without compromising oncological outcomes. There remains, however, a paucity of OSC studies in females. Further studies are required to make recommendations based on robust clinical evidence.
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.