ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Wide discrepancies between reported and actual resected prostate weight in HoLEP: a call for standardized reporting.
Article in World journal of urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMeasurements of prostate volume and weight are essential for surgical planning, outcome assessment, clinical practice, research, and guideline development in holmium laser enucleation of prostate. Yet, the reporting of both features is not standardized. Our objective was to illustrate these inconsistencies by comparing the weight of the resected prostate tissue measured in the operating room with the weight reported by pathology.
methodsWe conducted a prospective multicenter study of 409 holmium laser enucleation of prostate procedures performed across 4 medical centers. For each case, the two weight measurements were compared while the pathologists were blinded to the study, and the scales were well-calibrated. Statistical analyses were performed.
resultsThe median operating room weight was 58 g (IQR 40–83), significantly lower than the median pathology weight of 71 g (IQR 50–100; p < 0.001). Pathology weight exceeded operating room measurements in 90% of cases, with an average overestimation of 19%±21%. This discrepancy was consistent across all centers and prostate size subgroups (p < 0.001). The time to pathology processing did not correlate with the magnitude of discrepancy (p > 0.6). Agreement between the compared weights was high (ICC = 0.95, p < 0.001), and correlation was strong (r = 0.957). A regression model (R²=0.92, p < 0.001) allowed derivation of a calibration formula to estimate operating room weight from pathology-reported weight.
conclusionsPathology reports systematically overestimate the true weight of the tissue removed during holmium laser enucleation of prostate. We propose using the operating room weight or the adjusted pathology weight calculated with our formula as a new reporting standard.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41935992What 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.