ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2025
GreenLight photoselective laser vaporisation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for large prostates: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of blue laser vaporization of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Canadian journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) stands as a primary surgical intervention for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), although laser techniques, notably photoselective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP), are gaining traction. Previous studies have already assessed the efficacy of TURP and PVP, although with small prostates (<70 mL). Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy of PVP compared to TURP in the male BPH population with large prostates (≥70 mL). Methods: A systematic review was conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Studies comparing PVP to TURP in male BPH patients were included. Our primary outcome was the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Secondary outcomes encompassed maximum urinary flow rate (Qmáx), postvoid residual volume (Vres), operative time, catheterization time, postoperative hospital stay and complications. To assess the risk of bias we used Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) for non-randomized studies, and risk of bias 2 tool (Cochrane) (RoB2) for the randomized. Results: Three articles encompassing 159 patients each in the PVP and TURP groups were included. Our analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in IPSS score between PVP and TURP [mean difference (MD) 1.56; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52 to 3.64; P=0.14; I Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that PVP is non-inferior to TURP concerning IPSS, Qmáx, Vres, and complications, albeit with a longer operative time. PVP showed a reduced catheterization and postoperative hospital stay.
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.