Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23459033›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2013

Oncological and renal medical importance of kidney-sparing surgery.

Paul Russo

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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Surgical management of renal cell carcinoma: Canadian Kidney Cancer Forum Consensus.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2014
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Canadian guidelines for the management of small renal masses (SRM).Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada
    Article
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.

Paul RussoWeill Medical College, Cornell University, New York, NY 10021, USA. russop@mskcc.org
Cornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the past decade, the medical and oncological rationale for kidney-sparing surgical approaches for small renal masses has been clarified. Although radical nephrectomy is still necessary for many patients diagnosed with large renal tumours, accumulating evidence indicates that partial nephrectomy provides equivalent oncological outcomes while also preserving renal function and preventing the adverse cardiovascular effects of chronic kidney disease. Furthermore, approximately 45% of resected small renal tumours are benign or indolent, with limited--if any--metastatic potential. Patients who develop kidney cancer often have medical comorbidities that can affect kidney function, such as diabetes and hypertension, and histological examination of the non-tumour-bearing elements of the kidney demonstrate significant pathological changes in the vast majority of patients. For elderly patients or patients with comorbidities, active surveillance provides an alternative kidney-sparing approach, and is associated with extremely low rates of clinical disease progression and metastases. Despite these important advances in understanding, which support the use of partial nephrectomy for the treatment of small renal masses, the technique remains underused.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellHumansKidneyKidney NeoplasmsMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresNephrectomyOrgan Sparing Treatments

Identifiers

PMID23459033
OpenAlexW1975694683

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.