Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24496458›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2014

Risk of bladder cancer in renal transplant recipients: a meta-analysis.

L Yan, P Chen, E-Z Chen, A Gu, Z-Y Jiang

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Bladder cancer risk factors: a comprehensive umbrella review of meta-analyses.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

L Yan1] State Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Institute of Toxicology, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China [2] Key Laboratory of Modern Toxicology of Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
P ChenDepartment of Neurosurgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
E-Z ChenDepartment of Emergency, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
A Gu1] State Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Institute of Toxicology, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China [2] Key Laboratory of Modern Toxicology of Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Z-Y JiangDepartment of Surgery, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Nanjing Medical University · CNRuijin Hospital · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRenal transplantation has been associated with a significantly increased risk of developing cancers during long-term follow-up, but for bladder cancer, this risk is less clear. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to determine whether bladder cancer risk in renal transplant recipients was increased.

methodsEligible studies were identified through searches of PubMed and other public resources. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool overall estimates for standardised incidence ratios (SIRs). Heterogeneity test, sensitivity analysis, and assessment of publishing bias were also performed.

resultsWe identified a 3.18-fold higher SIR (95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.34-7.53, P=0.008) of bladder cancer in patients following renal transplantation compared with the general population, based on data from 79,988 patients with a total follow-up of 308,458 patient-years. When stratified by ethnicity, the SIRs for bladder cancer were 2.00 (95% CI: 1.51-2.65, P=0.001) and 14.74 (95% CI: 3.66-59.35, P<0.001) between European and Asian renal transplant recipients, respectively.

conclusionsOur study demonstrated that the risk of developing bladder cancer in transplant populations was increased. Such association suggests that physicians should be more vigilant in checking for bladder cancer in transplantation recipient population.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansKidney TransplantationMaleMiddle AgedRisk FactorsUrinary Bladder Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID24496458
PMCPMC3974078
OpenAlexW2085481228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.