Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40756224›Full record

ReviewIndian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India

Adequate pelvic lymph node dissection during radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive carcinoma urinary bladder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing extended and limited lymph node dissection.

Kumar Madhavan, Rahul Jena, Kapil Rathore, Amrut Phonde, Nikita Shrivastava, Devashish Kaushal, Manupriya Madhavan, Udit Khurana, Ela Haider

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. What's inside.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
    Article
  4. Critical appraisal of a meta-analysis on pelvic lymph node dissection in muscle-invasive bladder cancer.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
    Article
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

9 authors.

Kumar MadhavanDepartment of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, India.
Rahul JenaBagchi Sri Shankara Cancer Centre and Research Institute, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Kapil RathoreDepartment of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, India.
Amrut PhondeDepartment of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, India.
Nikita ShrivastavaDepartment of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, India.
Devashish KaushalDepartment of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, India.
Manupriya MadhavanDepartment of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, India.
Udit KhuranaDepartment of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, India.
Ela HaiderDepartment of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: To compare the efficacy and safety of extended lymph node dissection (eLND) versus standard LND (sLND) in patients with bladder cancer undergoing radical cystectomy, focusing on overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and complications, including symptomatic lymphoceles. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing eLND and sLND. The primary outcomes were OS and RFS, while secondary outcomes included complications such as lymphoceles, sepsis, and urinary tract infections. Data were extracted independently by two authors, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Results: Two RCTs (Gschwend Conclusion: While eLND did not show a survival benefit over sLND, it was associated with a higher risk of lymphoceles. eLND may be beneficial in patients with higher-risk disease requiring precise staging, but sLND is a viable and less morbid alternative for most patients.

Identifiers

PMID40756224
PMCPMC12312837

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.