SynthesisAnnals of surgical oncology2026
High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Versus Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Oncologic and Functional Outcomes.
Synthesis in Annals of surgical oncology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare functional and oncologic outcomes between high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for patients with localized prostate cancer (LPCa).
methodsFour databases (Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science) were systematically searched from inception to December 2025. The review followed PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 guidelines. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using Stata 17. Random-effects models were applied when I
resultsFive cohort studies (n = 2123) were included. In this review, HIFU was associated with significantly higher International Index of Etile Function (IIEF)-5 scores at 6 months (effect, 3.41; 95 % confidence interval [Cl], 1.88-4.94; P < 0.05), 12 months (effect, 3.75; 95% Cl 3.00-4.49; P < 0.05), and 24 months (effect, 2.72; 95% Cl 0.59-4.85; P < 0.05). Urinary continence overy also favored HIFU (odds ratio [OR], 0.40; 95% Cl 0.27-0.59; P < 0.05) for pad-free rates at baseline and at 6 and 12 months (all P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) or salvage therapy rates.
conclusionFor patients with localized prostate cancer, HIFU offers better etile function and urinary continence overy than RARP, with comparable complication and salvage therapy rates. Long-term oncologic outcomes remain to be confirmed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42283919What 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.