MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036494572 · doi:10.1111/bju.15146

The recurrence and progression risk after simultaneous endoscopic surgery of urothelial bladder tumour and benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2020· review· en· W3036494572 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Sari Motlagh, Keiichiro Mori, Noriyoshi Miura, Fahad Quhal, Abdulmajeed Aydh, Ekaterina Laukhtina, Benjamin Pradère, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Dmitry Enikeev, Marina Deuker, Shahrokh F. Shariat

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisRelative riskUrologyConfidence intervalBladder cancerHyperplasiaSurgeryInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives To evaluate recurrence and progression risk after simultaneous endoscopic surgery of bladder cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), as simultaneous surgery is not an unusual scenario and theoretically simultaneous transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) can lead to an increased risk of recurrence in the bladder neck and prostatic urethra (BN/PU). Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to assess the risk of recurrence (i.e. whole bladder and/or BN/PU) and tumour progression as outcomes after a simultaneous endoscopic surgery of bladder tumour and BPH, as compared to TURBT alone. We queried PubMed and Web of Science database on 1 January 2020. We used random‐ and/or fixed‐effects meta‐analytic models in the presence or absence of heterogeneity according to the I 2 statistic, respectively. Results Nine retrospective and three clinical trial studies were selected after considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. We conducted the meta‐analysis on retrospective and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) separately. Eight retrospective and three RCT studies were included to assess the BN/PU recurrence risk and the summarised risk ratio (RR) was 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74–1.41) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.47–1.84), respectively. Five retrospective and two RCT studies were included to assess the progression risk and the summarised RR was 0.91 (95% CI 0.56–1.48) and 1.16 (95% CI 0.30–4.51), respectively. Eight retrospective and three RCT studies were included to assess the whole bladder recurrence risk and the summarised RR was 0.87 (95% CI 0.78–0.97) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.65–1.21), respectively. Conclusion We did not observe any increased risk of total bladder recurrence, BN/PU recurrence, or progression after a simultaneous endoscopic surgery of bladder tumour and BPH, as compared to TURBT alone.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.042
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207