ReviewInvestigative and clinical urology2025
Comparative efficacy and safety of energy coagulation in radiation-induced hemorrhagic cystitis: A narrative review.
Review in Investigative and clinical urology, 2025. 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.
- Risk of second primary cancer after radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: A single-center Korean cohort study.Investigative and clinical urology · 2026Article
- The dose-volume histogram-based evaluation of predictors for gross hematuria after postprostatectomy radiotherapy.Prostate international · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the efficacy and safety of using energy devices as treatment for radiation-induced hemorrhagic cystitis (RHC) and to determine the most suitable energy source, settings and techniques based on laser-tissue interaction. A search of Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science databases was conducted uptil February 2024 to identify studies on use of energy devices for RHC. Additionally, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's ICTRP (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched for ongoing studies. We identified 10 studies fulfilling the search criteria using modalities including Nd:YAG laser, argon plasma coagulation, 980-nm diode laser, and potassium-titanyl-phosphate (KTP) laser. Across studies (n=137), majority (n=116, 84.7%) of RHC patients achieved hematuria resolution after one treatment session, with mean/median hematuria-free intervals of 11 to 16 months. Six patients (4.4%) were unresponsive and underwent cystectomy/urinary diversion. Total adverse events occurred in patients (30/139, 21.6%), including storage symptoms, recurrent hematuria, bladder stones and urinary retention, among others. Typical laser settings involved low power (<40 W), with either a pulse duration of 2-3 seconds or 10-40 milliseconds; some used continuous wave mode. Other standard practises include selective coagulation employed in a "painting" fashion and non-contact mode (3-5 mm). The treatment endpoints were hemostasis, involution of telangiectatic vessels and formation of pale well-circumscribed mucosal ulcer. Energy devices have considerable efficacy and safety to treat RHC patients and can be considered for refractory RHC and as an adjunct after initial management. The various properties of KTP laser confers an advantage over other energy devices.
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.