ArticleScientific reports2024
Win ratio analysis of short-term clinical outcomes of focal therapy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for the patients with localized prostate cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating less-invasive strategies for localized prostate cancer: a comparative meta-analysis on high-intensity focused ultrasound versus radical prostatectomy.International urology and nephrology · 2026Pooled it
- Trial
- Frontiers of Ultrasound Technology in Prostate Cancer Treatment.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2025Review
- Focal therapy using high-intensity focused ultrasound with intraoperative prostate compression for patients with localized prostate cancer: a multi-center prospective study with 7 year experience.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We compared the comprehensive clinical outcomes of focal therapy (FT) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with localized prostate cancer (PC) using a win ratio analysis. After propensity score matching, a win ratio analysis, in which the composite endpoints of failure-free survival (FFS) and the urinary domain of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) were analyzed, was used for the comparison of the clinical outcomes of FT and RARP for the patients with localized PC. Seventy-two patients were included in each group after propensity score matching. FFS was not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.5044) after 36 months of follow-up. In contrast, the score of the urinary domain of the EPIC in the FT group was significantly better than that in the RARP group (p < 0.0001). The win ratio of FT per RARP was 3.39 (p < 0.0001; 95% confidence interval 2.21-5.20), suggesting a higher comprehensive outcome in the FT group than in the RARP group during short-term follow-up in single institution. Although further randomized trial with long-term follow-up would be needed for the evaluation, the win ratio would be useful to analyze the efficacy of FT according to patient preferences comprehensively.
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.