SynthesisLasers in medical science2024
Comparative efficacy and safety of greenlight and thulium laser vaporization techniques for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Lasers in medical science, 2024. 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.
- The efficacy and safety of 1470 nm diode laser in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a prospective, multicenter study.Lasers in medical science · 2026Trial
- Effectiveness and safety of greenlight laser in ureteroscopic parapelvic cyst incision: a retrospective analysis.BMC urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of greenlight (PVP) and thulium laser vaporization (ThuVAP) in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) treatment. A systematic literature search was conducted in databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, Wangfang, and VIP in November 2023. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the primary outcomes of interest were performed. The review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42023491316. A total of 13 studies were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that compared to PVP, ThuVAP had a shorter operation time (MD: 8.56, 95% CI: 4.10 ~ 13.03, p = 0.0002), and higher postoperative transfusion (OR:0.26, 95% CI: 0.10 ~ 0.64, p = 0.004). However, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of length of stay (MD: -0.32, 95% CI: -0.78 ~ 0.14, p = 0.17), catherization time (MD: 0.03, 95% CI: -0.13 ~ 0.19, p = 0.73), international prostate symptom score improvement (MD: 0.23, 95% CI: -0.36 ~ 0.81, p = 0.45), quality of life improvement (MD: 0.04, 95% CI: -0.04 ~ 0.12, p = 0.29), maximum urinary flow rate improvement (MD: -0.59, 95% CI: -1.42 ~ 0.24, p = 0.16), postvoid residual urine volume improvement (MD: 1.04, 95% CI: -6.63 ~ 8.71, p = 0.79), overall postoperative complications (OR:1.15, 95% CI: 0.65 ~ 2.03, p = 0.63), postoperative bleeding (OR:1.18, 95% CI: 0.67 ~ 2.07, p = 0.56), re-peration (OR:0.55, 95% CI: 0.16 ~ 1.95, p = 0.35), urethral stricture (OR:0.90, 95% CI: 0.46 ~ 1.75, p = 0.75), and urinary incontinence (OR:1.07, 95% CI: 0.64 ~ 1.78, p = 0.80). The results of subgroup analysis showed that the results of comparing thulium vaporesection or vapoenucleation with PVP were consistent with the results of the pooled analysis. Both greenlight and thulium laser vaporization are effective and safe, with comparable surgical and functional outcomes. The choice between these methods should be based on patient-specific factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39042320What 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.