SynthesisWorld journal of urology2025
Tranexamic acid in radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and Safety of Tranexamic Acid in Solid Cancer Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials with GRADE Assessment.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Perioperative Patient Blood Management: Evidence-Based Strategies for Surgeons and Anesthesiologists: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRadical cystectomy (RC) is a high-risk procedure, associated with significant bleeding and high risk of perioperative blood transfusion (PBT), which may limit clinical and oncological outcomes. Tranexamic acid (TXA), an antifibrinolytic agent, effectively reduces bleeding in various surgical settings; however, its role in RC remains understudied. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of TXA in RC patients.
methodsA systematic search of CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and Web-of-Science was conducted, including studies published between January 2013 and January 2025. Four studies (one randomised controlled trial (RCT) and three retrospective cohort studies) met inclusion criteria. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I and RoB-2, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.
resultsTXA was associated with a significant reduction in overall PBT (odds ratio (OR) 0.48, 95%-confidence interval (CI) 0.27–0.82; p = 0.008), though the only RCT included failed to identify this trend. Estimated blood loss was numerically reduced in the TXA group, but did not reach statistical significance (mean difference − 36.8 mL; 95%-CI -78.1-4.6; p = 0.08). Notably, TXA did not increase the incidence of venous thromboembolism (OR 1.49, 95%-CI 0.86–2.57; p = 0.16). Key limitations include substantial heterogeneity between studies (I² = 78% for PBT outcome), varying TXA dosing protocols, and the predominance of retrospective studies.
conclusionTXA may reduce PBT requirements in RC without increasing thromboembolic risk. Further research is needed to confirm these findings, refine dosing protocols, and assess efficacy in minimally invasive RC.
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.