Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23443013›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2013

Proteomic studies of urinary biomarkers for prostate, bladder and kidney cancers.

Steven L Wood, Margaret A Knowles, Douglas Thompson, Peter J Selby, Rosamonde E Banks

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.9field-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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Prostate cancer detection: a systematic review of urinary biosensors.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Tensins in Kidney Function and Diseases.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Steven L WoodWolfson Molecular Imaging Centre, 27 Palatine Road, Withington, Manchester M20 3LJ, UK. steven.wood@manchester.ac.uk
Margaret A Knowles
Douglas Thompson
Peter J Selby
Rosamonde E Banks
St James's University Hospital · GBLeeds General Infirmary · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Urine is an ideal body fluid for the detection of protein markers produced by urological cancers as it can be sampled noninvasively and contains secreted and directly shed proteins from the prostate, bladder and kidney. Major challenges of working with urine include high inter-individual and intra-individual variability, low protein concentration, the presence of salts and the dynamic range of protein expression. Despite these challenges, significant progress is being made using modern proteomic methods to identify and characterize protein-based markers for urological cancers. The development of robust, easy-to-use clinical tests based on novel biomarkers has the potential to impact upon diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring and could revolutionize the treatment and management of these cancers.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiomarkersExosomesGenetic MarkersHumansKidney NeoplasmsMaleProstatic NeoplasmsProteomicsUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsBiomarkersGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID23443013
OpenAlexW2004741537

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.