ReviewBJUI compass2024
A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing Rezūm with transurethral needle ablation and microwave thermotherapy for the management of enlarged prostate.
Review in BJUI compass, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management of lower urinary tract symptoms before prostate cancer radiotherapy: a call for innovative strategies.World journal of urology · 2026Review
- Real-world comparison of RezūmWorld journal of urology · 2026Article
- Review
- A Sensitive Ratiometric Thermometer Constructed by AIEgen-Based Mixed Lanthanide MOF for Intracellular Temperature Mapping.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- To Rezūm or Not to Rezūm: A Narrative Review of Water Vapor Thermal Therapy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Erratum.BJUI compass · 2024Article
- Comparing outcomes of Aquablation versus holmium laser enucleation of prostate in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: A network meta-analysis.BJUI compass · 2024Review
- A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing Rezūm with transurethral needle ablation and microwave thermotherapy for the management of enlarged prostate.BJUI compass · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2024
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: We aim to compare efficacy and safety of water vapour therapy (Rezūm), transurethral needle ablation (TUNA) and transurethral microwave therapy (TUMT) for treating men with moderate to severe benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) symptoms. Materials: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 30 July 2023, followed by reference searching and dual-independent study selection. We analysed only randomized clinical trials. RoB-2, NIH-quality assessment tool and GRADE guidelines were used for quality-of-evidence (QoE) assessment. Relevant prospective studies without a critical risk-of-bias were included. Results: At 12 months, Rezūm showed similar efficacy to TUNA and TUMT for improvement in International Prostate Symptoms Score - Rezūm versus TUMT: 1.33 points (95% CI: -1.66 to 4.35) favouring TUMT (QoE: Moderate) and Rezūm versus TUNA: 0.07 points (95% CI: -3.64 to 3.88) favouring TUNA (QoE: Low). Rezum had similar outcomes to TUNA and TUMT for Maximum Peak-Flow Rate (Qmax): Rezūm versus TUMT: 1.05 mL/s (95% CI: -4.88 to 2.82) favouring Rezūm (QoE: Low) and Rezūm versus TUNA: 0.37 mL/s (95% CI: -4.61 to 4.21) favouring TUNA (QoE: Low). Furthermore, post-void residual volume (PVR) comparisons demonstrated that Rezūm was similar, or inferior to other techniques at 12 months - Rezūm versus TUMT: 11.20 mL (95% CI: -32.40 to 10.30) favouring TUMT (QoE: Low) and Rezūm versus TUNA: 24.10 mL (95% CI: 2.81 to 45.10) favouring TUNA (QoE: Low). Rezūm also had a similar surgical retreatment rate with TUMT and TUNA up to 3-years - TUMT versus Rezūm RR: 1.21 (95% CI: 0.20 to 15.90) (QoE: Low) and TUNA versus Rezūm showed RR: 1.81 (95% CI: 0.2 to 24.60) (QoE: Low). In the first 12 months after treatment, Rezūm had a higher rate of serious adverse events (Clavien-Dindo ≥ Grade 3) than TUMT and TUNA. TUMT versus Rezūm with RR = 0.53 (95% CI: 0.13 to 3.14) (QoE: Low) and TUNA versus Rezūm with RR = 0.38 (95% CI: 0.04 to 3.49) (QoE: Low). Conclusions: Moderate to weak evidence suggests that Rezūm is not superior to TUNA and TUMT in all domains studied.
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.