Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42548973›Full record

ReviewBJUI compass2026

Oncological outcomes of extended versus standard pelvic lymph node dissection in radical cystectomy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rafael Matos Vieira Gordilho, Nilo Jorge Carvalho Leão Barretto, Rodrigo Barbosa Freire Silvão, Felipe Pereira Garrido Pazos, Pedro Rodrigues Queiroz, Matheus Oliveira Figueiredo, Ricardo Andrade Freitas Souza, João Pedro Gomes da Conceição Oliva, Luma Gabriella Firme Sampaio Góes, Rafael Cintra Rosa Corrêa Oliveira and 10 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BJUI compass, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Rafael Matos Vieira GordilhoBrazilian Institute of Robotic Surgery Salvador Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9214-7906
Nilo Jorge Carvalho Leão BarrettoBrazilian Institute of Robotic Surgery Salvador Brazil.
Rodrigo Barbosa Freire SilvãoBrazilian Institute of Robotic Surgery Salvador Brazil.
Felipe Pereira Garrido PazosBrazilian Institute of Robotic Surgery Salvador Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7869-9648
Pedro Rodrigues QueirozBrazilian Institute of Robotic Surgery Salvador Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4643-9665
Matheus Oliveira FigueiredoBrazilian Institute of Robotic Surgery Salvador Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0260-2163
Ricardo Andrade Freitas SouzaBrazilian Institute of Robotic Surgery Salvador Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8332-640X
João Pedro Gomes da Conceição OlivaBrazilian Institute of Robotic Surgery Salvador Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-9971-9703
Luma Gabriella Firme Sampaio GóesBrazilian Institute of Robotic Surgery Salvador Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6863-2354
Rafael Cintra Rosa Corrêa OliveiraBrazilian Institute of Robotic Surgery Salvador Brazil.
Lorena Barboza de SousaBrazilian Institute of Robotic Surgery Salvador Brazil.
Felipe PinhoBrazilian Institute of Robotic Surgery Salvador Brazil.
Albuquerque SilvaBrazilian Institute of Robotic Surgery Salvador Brazil.
Leonardo Marques CalazansBrazilian Institute of Robotic Surgery Salvador Brazil.
Wendel Souza KruschewskyBrazilian Institute of Robotic Surgery Salvador Brazil.
Alexandre Azevedo ZiomkowskiBrazilian Institute of Robotic Surgery Salvador Brazil.
Eduardo Deda Mendonça FilhoBrazilian Institute of Robotic Surgery Salvador Brazil.
Gabriel Silva RochaBrazilian Institute of Robotic Surgery Salvador Brazil.
Marcos Tobias-MachadoSection of Urologic Oncology Arnaldo Vieira de Carvalho Cancer Institute São Paulo Brazil.
Raphael Brandão MoreiraSão Camilo Hospital Network São Paulo Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to evaluate whether extended lymph node dissection (ePLND) improves overall survival (OS) and oncological outcomes compared with standard dissection (sPLND) in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for urothelial bladder cancer. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA 2020 (PROSPERO CRD420261309465). PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched. RCTs and observational studies comparing ePLND and sPLND were included. The primary outcome was OS; secondary outcomes included recurrence-free survival (RFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), 5-year OS, 5-year RFS, major complications and lymphocele. A random-effects model was used, with sensitivity analyses and meta-regression. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I. Results: Sixteen studies ( Conclusion: Higher quality evidence does not demonstrate a consistent benefit of ePLND for OS, although overall analyses show reduced recurrence. Current data do not support the routine adoption of ePLND with the sole objective of improving survival.

Indexed as

bladder cancerextended lymph node dissectionmeta‐analysisoncological outcomespelvic lymph node dissectionradical cystectomy

Identifiers

PMID42548973
PMCPMC13430057

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.