Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22158597›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2011

Molecular biomarkers in urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: are we there yet?

George J Netto

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 64 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 127 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. MicroRNAs and target molecules in bladder cancer.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2020
    Review
  13. Review
  14. International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Cell Cycle Markers in the Evaluation of Bladder Cancer.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

4 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

George J NettoDepartment of Pathology, James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University, 402 N. Broadway Avenue, Weinberg Building suite 2242, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA. gnetto1@jhmi.edu
Johns Hopkins Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The unprecedented advances in cancer genetics and genomics are rapidly affecting the clinical management of solid tumors. Molecular diagnostics are now an integral part of routine clinical management for patients with lung, colon, and breast cancer. In sharp contrast, molecular biomarkers have been largely excluded from current management algorithms for urologic malignancies. The need for new treatment options that can improve upon the modest outcomes currently associated with muscle-invasive bladder cancer is evident, and validated prognostic molecular biomarkers that can help clinicians to identify patients in need of early, aggressive management are lacking. Robust predictive biomarkers that are able to forecast and stratify responses to emerging targeted therapies are also needed.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiomarkersBiomarkers, TumorHumansSignal TransductionUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsBiomarkersBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID22158597
OpenAlexW1980477405

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.