Thank you very much for your careful reading of our research and your valuable comments. It is necessary for us to explain your questiones. Firstly, not every meta-analysis need to be registered. For example, Donaldson's meta-analysis published in the European Journal of Urology was not registered [1], and du [2], Zhou [3], Li [4] and so on are also not registered. Secondly, in the three studies, TURP group includes a very small number of open prostatectomy patients. Due to the small number of patients, we believethat it has no significant influence on the overall conclusion. Thirdly, we search the EMBASE, PubMed,the Cochrane Library and find Fragkoulis [5], Pastore [6] and Ramirez [7], but we couldn't get the original text at that time, so we excluded them. Finally, match analysis is performed in ten of the 13 studies, so we believe that the basic characteristics of the two groups are basically the same. For example, Gleason scores of the two groups were the same in each study.
Li [8] published a meta-analysis similar to our meta-analysis. However, in the study of Li [8], there is no sensitivity analysis for I2 > 50%, the results are not reliable. In our meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis is performed for each outcome indicator with I2 > 50%, and after excluding some studies, I2 drop below 50%. Therefore, our results are more reliable.
References
Donaldson JF, Ruhayel Y, Skolarikos A et al (2019) Treatment of bladder stones in adults and children: a systematic review and meta-analysis on behalf of the European association of urology urolithiasis guideline panel [J]. Eur Urol 76(3):352–367
Du Y, Long Q, Guan B et al (2018) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is more beneficial for prostate cancer patients: a system review and meta-analysis [J]. Med Sci Monit 24:272–287
Zhou Z, Zhao S, Lu Y et al (2019) Meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of continuous saline bladder irrigation compared with intravesical chemotherapy after transurethral resection of bladder tumors [J]. World J Urol 37(6):1075–1084
Li H, Chen J, Cui Y et al (2019) Delayed versus standard ligature of the dorsal venous complex during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies [J]. Int J Surg 68:117–125
Fragkoulis C, Pappas A, Theocharis G et al (2018) Open radical prostatectomy after transurethral resection: perioperative, functional, oncologic outcomes [J]. Can J Urol 25(2):9262–9267
Pastore AL, Palleschi G, Silvestri L et al (2015) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of prostate using a catheter balloon inflated in prostatic urethra: oncological and functional outcomes from a matched pair analysis [J]. Int J Urol 22(11):1037–1042
Ramírez BM, Juan EJ, Palmero MJ et al (2012) Importance of previous transurethral resection of the prostate before eerpe. short-term functional outcomes in a single surgeon series [J]. Arch Esp Urol 65(7):675–683
Li H, Zhao C, Liu P et al (2019) Radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Transl Androl Urol 8(6):712–727
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Liao, H., Wu, T. Reply to Peihua Liu, Yangle Li’s Letter to the Editor regarding the article “Radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate: oncological, surgical and functional outcomes—a meta-analysis”. World J Urol 39, 3697 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03308-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03308-7