ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Transurethral Ultrasound Ablation for Localized Prostate Cancer: A GRADE-Assessed Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Commentary on: Uterine Artery Embolization Using Gelatin Sponge Particles in Patients with Symptomatic Uterine Fibroids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate technical, oncologic, safety, and functional outcomes following magnetic resonance imaging-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) for localized prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 2026 identified studies reporting TULSA outcomes for localized PCa in treatment-naive or salvage settings. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Subgroup analyses stratified outcomes by treatment intent and sensitivity analyses excluded the largest retrospective study. Heterogeneity (I
resultsThirteen studies comprising 650 patients were included. TULSA demonstrated universal technical success (100%, I
conclusionTULSA demonstrated excellent technical feasibility and minimal major morbidity (moderate certainty). Continence preservation was substantially better in treatment-naive than salvage patients. Oncologic and erectile function outcomes remain very low certainty due to high heterogeneity and 36-month maximum follow-up. Current evidence supports TULSA for carefully selected treatment-naive patients, pending long-term comparative data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2a, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis including Observational Studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42717106What 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.