Trial reportEuropean urology2026
[
Trial report in European urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- PSMA PET-guided intensification of postprostatectomy salvage radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of PSMA-Based Radiopharmaceuticals on the Clinical Management of Prostate Cancer.Cancers · 2026Article
- Recurrent prostate adenocarcinoma after radical prostatectomy: Principles of multidisciplinary management across a spectrum of disease.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveIn EMPIRE-1, [
methodsEMPIRE-2 was a randomized trial of [ KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: In the cohort of 140 patients, 59 randomized to arm 1 patients and 60 randomized to arm 2 completed RT. Median follow-up was 2.6 yr (interquartile range 1.8-4.0). The 2-yr EFS rates were 87% for the overall EMPIRE-2 cohort versus 80% for the EMPIRE-1 comparison cohort (difference 7.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.7-12%; p = 0.01). After propensity score weighting, the corresponding 2-yr EFS rates were 84% versus 73% (difference 11%, 95% CI 3.6-24%; p = 0.01). The 2-yr EFS rates in the EMPIRE-2 study arms were 87% for [ CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Use of either [
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.