ArticleTherapeutic advances in urology
Evaluating repeat transurethral resection after en bloc resection for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.
Article in Therapeutic advances in urology. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Many studies have stressed the necessity of repeat transurethral resection (reTURB) following the initial conventional transurethral resection of the bladder for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) patients. However, there have been few studies focusing on the role of reTURB after en bloc resection of bladder tumor (ERBT) for NMIBC by far. This study aimed to evaluate whether reTURB can be avoided after ERBT. Materials and methods: We conducted research in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to November 14, 2024, to identify studies on the reTURB after initial ERBT. For data conversion and the combined calculation of the incidence rate, we utilized R software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) and Cochrane Review Manager 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK) along with the double arcsine method. This systematic review protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under number 1082989. Results: A total of 17 studies involving 1051 participants were included. The rates of residual tumor and tumor upstaging detected by reTURB or cystoscopy after ERBT were 9% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 4%-16%) and 0% (95% CI = 0%-1%). No statistically significant positive effect of reTURB after initial ERBT was exhibited in recurrence-free survival (RFS), tumor recurrence, and progression. The pooled hazard ratios of 1-year and 5-year RFS were 0.77 (95% CI = 0.41-1.44, Conclusion: ERBT can successfully regulate the rate of tumor upstaging and residual tumor to an acceptable level. For patients with NMIBC, subsequent reTURB may not be required following the initial ERBT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.