ArticleBMC urology2013
Bladder cancer--the neglected tumor: a descriptive analysis of publications referenced in MEDLINE and data from the register ClinicalTrials.gov.
Article in BMC urology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Planetary Health Booms: Unpacking the Surge in Research Across the Globe Through Joint-Point Analysis.GeoHealth · 2024Article
- Clinical Trial Outcomes in Urology: Assessing Early Discontinuation, Results Reporting and Publication in ClinicalTrials.Gov Registrations 2007-2019.The Journal of urology · 2021Article
- [Types of evidence syntheses].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021Review
- [Urological research in Germany : A retrospective, longitudinal observational study].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2020Observational
- Impact of reduced levels of APE1 transcripts on the survival of patients with urothelial carcinoma of the bladder.Oncology reports · 2015Article
- Scientific Productivity on Research in Ethical Issues over the Past Half Century: A JoinPoint Regression Analysis.Tropical medicine and health · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUro-oncological neoplasms have both a high incidence and mortality rate and are therefore a major public health problem. The aim of this study was to evaluate research activity in uro-oncology over the last decade.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE and ClinicalTrials.gov systematically for studies on prostatic, urinary bladder, kidney, and testicular neoplasms. The increase in newly published reports per year was analyzed using linear regression. The results are presented with 95% confidence intervals, and a p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThe number of new publications per year increased significantly for prostatic, kidney and urinary bladder neoplasms (all <0.0001). We identified 1,885 randomized controlled trials (RCTs); also for RCTs, the number of newly published reports increased significantly for prostatic (p = 0.001) and kidney cancer (p = 0.005), but not for bladder (p = 0.09) or testicular (p = 0.44) neoplasms. We identified 3,114 registered uro-oncological studies in ClinicalTrials.gov. However, 85% of these studies are focusing on prostatic (45%) and kidney neoplasms (40%), whereas only 11% were registered for bladder cancers.
conclusionsWhile the number of publications on uro-oncologic research rises yearly for prostatic and kidney neoplasms, urothelial carcinomas of the bladder seem to be neglected despite their important clinical role. Clinical research on neoplasms of the urothelial bladder must be explicitly addressed and supported.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.