ArticlePloS one2026
Prehabilitation models in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prehabilitation, defined as the preoperative optimisation of physical, nutritional, and psychological status, has emerged as a promising strategy to improve postoperative recovery in surgical oncology. However, its application in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) remains poorly characterised. This scoping review aimed to systematically map existing evidence on prehabilitation models for patients scheduled for RP, with particular focus on delivery formats, intervention components, and outcome measures. Following the Arksey and O'Malley framework and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, a comprehensive search of nine electronic databases was conducted from inception to 1 December 2025. Thirteen studies from eight countries were included, comprising randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and prospective cohort studies. Three distinct delivery formats were identified: digital remote interventions via mobile applications (n = 4), non-digital remote interventions via booklets and telephone follow-up (n = 4), and in-person hospital-based programmes (n = 5). Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) was the most consistently implemented component (n = 11), complemented by aerobic exercise, resistance training, nutritional support, psychological interventions, and health education. Outcome measures spanned six domains: urinary continence and sexual function, physical function, perioperative clinical outcomes, psychological status, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and nutritional status. Considerable heterogeneity was observed across intervention content and outcome assessment instruments. Prehabilitation appears feasible and acceptable across diverse delivery formats; however, the current evidence base is constrained by methodological heterogeneity and inconsistent outcome measurement. High-quality RCTs are warranted to establish standardised multimodal prehabilitation protocols and consensus-based core outcome sets for this population.
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.