Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39677963›Full record

SynthesisPeerJ2024

Clinical efficacy and safety of organ-sparing cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yi Zhang, Lei Peng, Yang Zhang, Hangxu Li, Songbei Li, Shaohua Zhang, Jianguo Shi

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Yi Zhang *Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinzhou Medical University, Jinzhou Medical University, Jinzhou, Liaoning, China.
Lei Peng *Institute of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University (Luohu Hospital Group), Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Yang ZhangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinzhou Medical University, Jinzhou Medical University, Jinzhou, Liaoning, China.
Hangxu LiDepartment of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Jinzhou Medical University, Jinzhou Medical University, Jinzhou, Liaoning, China.
Songbei LiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Shaohua ZhangSouth China Hospital, Health Science Center, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Jianguo ShiDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinzhou Medical University, Jinzhou Medical University, Jinzhou, Liaoning, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The clinical safety and efficacy of organ-sparing cystectomy (OSC) are subjects of ongoing debate, particularly concerning the potential increased risk of recurrence when retaining additional organs and its effectiveness in preserving sexual and urinary functions. Methods: Adhering to the PRISMA 2020 statement and AMSTAR Guidelines, we conducted a systematic literature search up to February 2024 using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. The comparison focused on the clinical safety and effectiveness of OSC and standard radical cystectomy (SRC) in the treatment of bladder tumors. Our assessment covered several dimensions: Surgical safety outcomes (operation time, length of stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), and complications), oncological safety outcomes (recurrence rate, positive surgical margin rate, overall survival, and cancer-specific survival), and functional efficacy outcomes (daytime and nighttime urinary incontinence at 6 and 12 months, clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) rate, and erectile function within and after 1 year). Results: The analysis included 19 eligible studies, encompassing 2,057 patients (1,189 OSC patients and 768 SRC patients). OSC demonstrated significant benefits in terms of erectile function and urinary continence without impacting CIC rates. No significant differences were observed in recurrence rate, positive surgical margin rate, overall survival, and cancer-specific survival. Furthermore, OSC and SRC were comparable in surgical safety outcomes, including operating time, LOS, EBL, and complications. Conclusions: OSC offers notable advantages in erectile function and urinary continence. Despite limited clinical practice and potential selection bias, urologists may still consider OSC more based on their experience and specific patient factors.

Indexed as

CystectomyOrgan Sparing TreatmentsUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsBlood Loss, SurgicalHumansLength of StayMaleNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeErectile functionNerve sparingOrgan sparingRadical cystectomyUrinary continence

Identifiers

PMID39677963
PMCPMC11639212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.