ReviewCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2025
Comparative effectiveness of en-bloc vs. conventional transurethral resection for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2025. 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.
- En bloc versus conventional transurethral resection for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: an expanded and updated systematic review and meta-analysis reconciling contemporary evidence on oncological, pathological, and safety outcomes.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Holmium laser en‑bloc vs bipolar and conventional monopolar TURBT for non‑muscle‑ınvasive bladder cancer.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Histopathological Advantages of En Bloc Resection in Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: A Multinational Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial.European urology open science · 2026Article
- En-bloc resection: Evidence and uncertainty Re: Comparative effectiveness of en-bloc resection techniques vs. conventional transurethral resection for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTransurethral en-bloc resection of bladder tumor (ERBT) has emerged as an alternate technique to conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumor (cTURBT). While theoretically advantageous, the comparative effectiveness of ERBT across various technical approaches remains unclear. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate perioperative, pathologic, and oncologic outcomes of ERBT vs. cTURBT.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Google Scholar for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ERBT and cTURBT. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes were operative time, complication rates, detrusor muscle presence, and need for repeated resection. Meta-analyses were performed, with subgroup analyses stratified by ERBT technique.
resultsA total of 10 RCTs with 1973 patients (1012 ERBT, 961 cTURBT) were included. Overall data favored ERBT in RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.01, p=0.07, I
conclusionsERBT might have oncologic and perioperative benefits, in addition to technical advantages, relative to cTURBT. Variations in resection instruments used impact the consistency of results.
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.