Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25709027›Full record

ReviewEuropean urology2015

Prognostic and Prediction Tools in Bladder Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature.

Luis A Kluth, Peter C Black, Bernard H Bochner, James Catto, Seth P Lerner, Arnulf Stenzl, Richard Sylvester, Andrew J Vickers, Evanguelos Xylinas, Shahrokh F Shariat

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 150 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
150citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

150 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

90 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Luis A KluthDepartment of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, University Medical-Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Peter C BlackDepartment of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Bernard H BochnerDepartment of Urology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Tumors, New York, NY, USA.
James CattoAcademic Urology Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Seth P LernerScott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Arnulf StenzlDepartment of Urology, Eberhard-Karls University, Tuebingen, Germany.
Richard SylvesterEORTC Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium.
Andrew J VickersDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Evanguelos XylinasDepartment of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, Cochin Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, UT Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA; Division of Medical Oncology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: sfshariat@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextThis review focuses on risk assessment and prediction tools for bladder cancer (BCa).

objectiveTo review the current knowledge on risk assessment and prediction tools to enhance clinical decision making and counseling of patients with BCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature search in English was performed using PubMed in July 2013. Relevant risk assessment and prediction tools for BCa were selected. More than 1600 publications were retrieved. Special attention was given to studies that investigated the clinical benefit of a prediction tool. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Most prediction tools for BCa focus on the prediction of disease recurrence and progression in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer or disease recurrence and survival after radical cystectomy. Although these tools are helpful, recent prediction tools aim to address a specific clinical problem, such as the prediction of organ-confined disease and lymph node metastasis to help identify patients who might benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Although a large number of prediction tools have been reported in recent years, many of them lack external validation. Few studies have investigated the clinical utility of any given model as measured by its ability to improve clinical decision making. There is a need for novel biomarkers to improve the accuracy and utility of prediction tools for BCa.

conclusionsDecision tools hold the promise of facilitating the shared decision process, potentially improving clinical outcomes for BCa patients. Prediction models need external validation and assessment of clinical utility before they can be incorporated into routine clinical care. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at models that aim to predict outcomes for patients with bladder cancer (BCa). We found a large number of prediction models that hold the promise of facilitating treatment decisions for patients with BCa. However, many models are missing confirmation in a different patient cohort, and only a few studies have tested the clinical utility of any given model as measured by its ability to improve clinical decision making.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesBiomarkers, TumorChemotherapy, AdjuvantCystectomyDisease-Free SurvivalDisease ProgressionHumansLymphatic MetastasisNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingNomogramsPredictive Value of TestsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsBiomarkers, TumorBladder cancerDisease recurrenceNomogramOutcomePredictionPrediction toolPrognosisPrognostic toolRadical cystectomySurvival

Identifiers

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.