ReviewClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
En bloc versus conventional resection of primary bladder tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo provide an updated view comparing the perioperative, functional characteristics and oncological outcomes in patients submitted to cTURBT and ERBT for the diagnosis and treatment of NMIBC.
methodsA search of major databases, including Medline, Embase, Lilacs, Scopus, Web of Science, NIH, Clinical Trials, and EU Clinical Trials Register, was conducted up to January 2025, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Only Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were included. The primary endpoints assessed were perioperative complications and oncological outcomes.
resultsThis study encompasses 16 studies including 2.654 patients. Surgery duration showed a longer time of operation in the ERBT group (MD = 3.09, 95% CI 0.15‒6.03). Also, less time of catheterisation (MD = -0.54, 95% CI -0.97 ‒ -0.11) and shorter length of stay in the ERBT group (MD = -0.83, 95% CI -1.41 ‒ -0.25). The total number of perioperative complications was lower in the ERBT group, although no statistically significant difference was shown between groups. Lastly, the ERBT group was associated with less chance of triggering the obturator reflex (OR = 5.44, 95% CI 1.61‒18.34). Oncological outcomes showed no significant difference between groups.
conclusionERBT and cTURBT showed no difference in short-term oncological outcomes. Although ERBT did not reduce overall complication rates, it demonstrated a benefit in reducing the occurrence of the obturator reflex and shorter time of hospitalization. Further randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up and a broad spectrum of tumor sizes are necessary. More randomized controlled trials are needed, focusing on long-term follow-up and a wider range of tumor sizes.
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.