ReviewLasers in medical science2023
Network meta-analysis of the treatment safety and efficacy of different energy systems in prostate vaporization.
Review in Lasers in medical science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating surgical smoke in laser-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with a novel handle: anin Vitrostudy.The Canadian journal of urology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of transurethral GreenLight laser-selective vaporization for refractory overactive bladder in women.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many clinical trials and meta-analyses have examined vaporization with different energy instruments has been recognized by the American Urological Association (AUA) and the European Association of Urology (EAU) as a promising treatment for benign prostate hyperplasia. However, there is still a lack of evidence for a network comparison between different vaporization devices. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of different energy systems for prostate vaporization. Pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed to analyze the outcome regarding surgery time, complications, short-term maximum urine flow rate (Qmax), and long-term Qmax. The Stata software was used for paired meta-analysis. A Bayesian NMA model with ADDIS software was applied to achieve the indirect comparison of different energy systems. Node-splitting analysis and inconsistency factors were used to test inconsistency for closed-loop indirect comparison. Fifteen studies were included in this study, involving three types of energy systems used in prostate vaporization: diode laser (wavelength: 980 nm, power: 200-300 W, mode: continuous), green-light laser (wavelength: 532 nm, power: 80-180 W, mode: continuous), and bipolar plasma vaporization (bipolar electrode, power: 270-280 W, mode: pulsed). In the conventional paired meta-analysis, significantly better short-term efficacy was found in green light laser vaporization, while no significant difference was detected in other parameters. According to the results of the NMA, a greenlight laser is recommended for prostate vaporization rather than the other two systems. When considering operation time, overall complications, short-term Qmax, and long-term Qmax, there were no significant differences among green-light laser vaporization, diode laser vaporization, and bipolar vaporization in BPH treatment. However, according to the probability ranking and benefit-risk analysis results, the green-light laser might be the best energy system for prostate vaporization in BPH treatment.
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.