Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21989305›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2011

Urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: definition, treatment and future efforts.

Sandip M Prasad, G Joel Decastro, Gary D Steinberg, Medscape

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

86 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Deregulated Expression ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Epigenetic regulation ofMolecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Sandip M PrasadSection of Urology, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 South Maryland Avenue, MC 6038, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
G Joel Decastro
Gary D Steinberg
Medscape

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The identification of patients with high-risk bladder cancer is important for the timely and appropriate treatment of this lethal disease. The understanding of the natural history of bladder cancer has improved; however, the criteria used to define high-risk disease and the relevant treatment strategies have remained the same for the past several decades, despite multiple large, randomized, prospective clinical trials that have evaluated the use of intravesical, surgical and systemic therapies. The genetic signature of high-risk bladder cancer has been a focus of investigation and has led to the discovery of potential molecular targets for disease identification, risk stratification and therapy. These advances, combined with a comprehensive risk assessment profile that incorporates available pathological and clinical characteristics, might improve the diagnosis and treatment of patients with bladder cancer.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsCombined Modality TherapyForecastingHumansRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsUrotheliumAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

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.