Comparative efficacy and safety of prostatic urethral lift vs prostatic artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis
Abstract
To assess and compare the clinical efficacy and safety of prostatic urethral lift (PUL) and prostatic artery embolization (PAE) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) by means of a systematic review and network meta‐analysis.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: facing age-related comorbidities and drug–drug interactions
- The Efficacy of Flogofilm® in the Treatment of Chronic Bacterial Prostatitis as an Adjuvant to Antibiotic Therapy: A Randomized Prospective Trial
- Inhibition of growth and contraction in human prostate stromal cells by silencing of NUAK1 and -2, and by the presumed NUAK inhibitors HTH01-015 and WZ4003
- Effectiveness and Safety of a New Nutrient Fixed Combination Containing Pollen Extract Plus Teupolioside, in the Management of LUTS in Patients with Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy: A Pilot Study
- Extract from Cucurbita pepo improves BPH symptoms without affecting sexual function: a 24-month noninterventional study
- Aquablation vs. holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a 150-patients prospective comparative multicenter study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.