Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25724433›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2015

Preoperative imaging for staging bladder cancer.

Maxim J McKibben, Michael E Woods

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Applications of radiomics in genitourinary tumors.American journal of cancer research · 2020
    Review
  18. Review
  19. A glance at imaging bladder cancer.Clinical and translational imaging · 2018
    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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maxim J McKibbenDepartment of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 170 Manning Drive, 2115 Physicians Office Building, CB#7235, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7235, USA.
Michael E Woods
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate preoperative staging of bladder cancer is essential in determining the extent of disease and optimal treatment. The current gold standard of transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) followed by computed tomography (CT) imaging provides excellent staging specificity, but often understages the disease, leading to pathologic upstaging and adverse outcomes in patients undergoing radical cystectomy. Newer imaging modalities, such as multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and positron emission tomography (PET) combined with CT or MR provides promising imaging alternatives which may improve accuracy of staging both local and distant disease.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Transitional CellCystectomyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMultimodal ImagingNeoplasm StagingPositron-Emission TomographyPreoperative CareTomography, X-Ray ComputedUrinary Bladder Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID25724433
OpenAlexW2078153809

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.