Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37721644›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2023

Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Junji Wang, Ke Hu, Yu Wang, Yinyu Wu, Erhao Bao, Jiahao Wang, Chunlin Tan, Tielong Tang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
15.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Junji WangDepartment of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, No.1, Maoyuan South Road, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province, China.
Ke HuDepartment of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, No.1, Maoyuan South Road, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province, China.
Yu WangDepartment of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, No.1, Maoyuan South Road, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province, China.
Yinyu WuDepartment of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, No.1, Maoyuan South Road, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province, China.
Erhao BaoDepartment of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, No.1, Maoyuan South Road, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province, China.
Jiahao WangDepartment of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, No.1, Maoyuan South Road, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province, China.
Chunlin TanDepartment of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, No.1, Maoyuan South Road, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province, China.
Tielong TangDepartment of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, No.1, Maoyuan South Road, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province, China. cdzt2004@163.com.
Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study aims to synthesize all available prospective comparative studies and reports the latest systematic analysis and updated evidence comparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) for perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were retrieved up to March 2023. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative studies were included, and weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) were used to evaluate the pooled results. Twenty-one articles were included in the present meta-analysis. The results indicated that compared to ORP, RARP had longer operative time (OT) (WMD: 51.41 min; 95%CI: 28.33, 74.48; p < 0.0001), reduced blood loss (WMD: -516.59 mL; 95%CI: -578.31, -454.88; p < 0.00001), decreased transfusion rate (OR: 0.23; 95%CI: 0.18, 0.30; p < 0.00001), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -1.59 days; 95%CI: -2.69, -0.49; p = 0.005), fewer overall complications (OR: 0.61; 95%CI: 0.45, 0.83; p = 0.001), and higher nerve sparing rate (OR: 1.64; 95%CI: 1.26, 2.13; p = 0.0003), as well as was more beneficial to postoperative erectile function recovery and biochemical recurrence (BCR). However, no significant disparities were noted in major complications, postoperative urinary continence recovery, or positive surgical margin (PSM) rates. RARP was superior to ORP in terms of hospital stay, blood loss, transfusion rate, complications, nerve sparing, postoperative erectile function recovery, and BCR. It is a safe and effective surgical approach to the treatment of clinically localized PCa.

Indexed as

Erectile DysfunctionProstatic NeoplasmsRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansMaleProspective StudiesProstatectomyTreatment OutcomeMeta-analysisOpen radical prostatectomyProspective studyProstate cancerRobot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Identifiers

PMID37721644
OpenAlexW4386817971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.