ReviewNature reviews. Urology2014
Looking forward, looking back-10 years in urology.
Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Open versus minimally invasive surgical approaches in pediatric urology: Trends in utilization and complications.Journal of pediatric urology · 2017Article
- Biofabrication and biomaterials for urinary tract reconstruction.Research and reports in urology · 2017Review
- Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: bench to bedside in urology. Preface.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When Nature Reviews Urology launched in 2004, the field of urology was vastly different to that which we work in today, and the past 10 years have seen the field change immensely. As a specialty on the forefront of cutting-edge innovation, urologists are often the first to embrace new technologies and ideas. In this Viewpoint, members of the Nature Reviews Urology advisory board were asked what they thought was the most important change, issue or innovation in urology in the past 10 years, and what they expected to be the most important in the next decade. Here are their opinions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25348169What 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.