Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18587549›Full record

ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2008

[Photodynamic diagnostics in the urinary tract. Consensus paper of the Working Group for Oncology of the German Society for Urology].

A Stenzl, D Jocham, P Jichlinski, K Junker, F König, H van den Bergh, B Volkmer, D Zaak, J E Gschwend, Working Group for Oncology of the German Society for Urology

Open access · greenAbstract readEnglish AbstractConsensus Statement
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

A StenzlUniversitätsklinik für Urologie, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. Urologie@med.uni-tuebingen.de
D Jocham
P Jichlinski
K Junker
F König
H van den Bergh
B Volkmer
D Zaak
J E Gschwend
Working Group for Oncology of the German Society for Urology
Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEUniversity Hospital of Lausanne · CHUniversity of Lübeck · DEUniversity of Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Because of the frequency of occurrence and the long protracted course, bladder carcinoma is the most expensive solid tumor in terms of costs, from diagnosis to death of the patient. The most important cost factor within the total cost is the treatment of recurrent, non-muscle invasive bladder carcinoma. Photodynamic diagnosis (PDD) improves the early detection rate of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, especially the detection of carcinoma in situ and severe dysplasia. PDD also reduces the number of residual tumors after TUR-B compared to white-light guided TUR-B and also the early recurrence rate although long-term outcome with hexylaminolaevulinic acid with regards to the general course of bladder cancer is still lacking. PDD has been used mainly for detection of bladder cancer and specifically carcinoma in situ in conjunction with diagnostic and therapeutic transurethral resection of the bladder. In 2006 hexylaminolaevulinic acid (HAL) was approved in the EU (EMEA) as a photosensitizer for the use in photodynamic diagnosis of the bladder. Several guidelines have incorporated PDD as optional form of diagnosis during endoscopy in proven or suspected bladder cancer, but no specific recommendations regarding indication and application of PDD exist. The German group of urologic oncology (AKO) invited urologists and biologists involved in the development of hexylaminolaevulinic acid as well its clinical use to participate in evaluating the data for HAL and its predecessor delta-aminolaevulinic acid (5-ALA). A consensus with regards to the indications, contraindications, technique, pre-clinical data, comparison of HAL and 5-ALA, current results, costs and follow-up was reached and are presented in this paper.

Indexed as

Aminolevulinic AcidSocieties, MedicalHumansMedical OncologyMicroscopy, FluorescencePhotosensitizing AgentsUrologic NeoplasmsUrologyAminolevulinic AcidPhotosensitizing Agents

Identifiers

PMID18587549
OpenAlexW1506097269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.