ReviewAsian journal of urology2026
Decision regret after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Asian journal of urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The pseudouridine epitranscriptomic landscape of advanced prostate cancer therapeutic resistance identifies TIMM17A as a key player.Translational oncology · 2026Article
- Alignment between AI clinical decision tools and multidisciplinary tumor board decisions in prostate cancer.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Early patient-reported outcomes and decisional regret after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A prospective single-center cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Observational
- Impact of frailty on perioperative and oncologic outcomes after robotic radical prostatectomy: a multicenter study with competing risk analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is the most commonly performed surgical treatment for prostate cancer. However, decision regret (DR) represents a concern for both patients undergoing the procedure and clinicians involved in therapeutic management. To address this need, we performed a systematic review exploring DR severity and its associations after RARP. Methods: A comprehensive search in scientific literature databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science) identified studies on DR in RARP-treated patients. All studies objectively evaluating DR were included. Within studies using the validated 5-item DR scale (range 0-100), the pooled estimate was calculated using fixed- and random-effects models accounting for different follow-ups. A qualitative synthesis analyzed the impact of multiple baseline, perioperative, and postoperative factors on DR. Results: We retrieved 493 articles using our search strategy, with 15 meeting inclusion criteria. A total of 3480 prostate cancer patients with objective DR assessment after RARP were identified. The median follow-up ranged from 4.8 months to 6.3 years while response rates varied between 45% and 100%. Among the included studies, 10 used the Decision Regret Scale, with a pooled mean estimate of 15.22 (95% confidence interval 11.52-18.93) under the random-effects model. In the remaining five studies, DR was generally low (65%-75%) and even absent in some (12%-49%). Functional outcomes, such as continence and potency, were the most frequently reported factors significantly associated with DR. However, variability in assessing DR and other outcomes limits the ability to draw definitive conclusions. Conclusion: Most patients report low DR after RARP. Functional outcomes correlate with DR, but the heterogeneity in assessments and reporting methods warrants the need for more standardized evaluation.
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.