Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26241896›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Diagnostic Value of Liquid-Based Cytology in Urothelial Carcinoma Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

You Luo, Dong-Li She, Hu Xiong, Li Yang, Sheng-Jun Fu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Surgical Site Cytology to Diagnose Spinal Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

You LuoGansu Nephro-Urological Clinical Center, Institute of Urology, Department of Urology, Key Laboratory of Urological Disease of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou 730000, China.
Dong-Li SheGansu Nephro-Urological Clinical Center, Institute of Urology, Department of Urology, Key Laboratory of Urological Disease of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou 730000, China.
Hu XiongGansu Nephro-Urological Clinical Center, Institute of Urology, Department of Urology, Key Laboratory of Urological Disease of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou 730000, China.
Li YangGansu Nephro-Urological Clinical Center, Institute of Urology, Department of Urology, Key Laboratory of Urological Disease of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou 730000, China.
Sheng-Jun FuGansu Nephro-Urological Clinical Center, Institute of Urology, Department of Urology, Key Laboratory of Urological Disease of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou 730000, China.
Lanzhou University · CNLanzhou University Second Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the value of liquid-based cytology (LBC) in the diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma.

methodDiagnostic studies were searched for the diagnostic value of LBC in urothelial carcinoma in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM and CNKI. The latest retrieval date was September 2014. The data were extracted and the quality of the included studies was independently assessed by 2 reviewers. Stata 13 software was used to perform the statistical analysis. The research was conducted in compliance with the PRISMA statement.

resultNineteen studies, which included 8293 patients, were evaluated. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the pooled sensitivity and specificity of LBC were 0.58 (0.51-0.65) and 0.96 (0.93-0.98), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 31 (18-56) and the area under the curve (AUC) of summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) was 0.83 (0.80-0.86). The post-test probability was 80% when a positive diagnosis was made. Compared with high grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC), the sensitivity of detecting low-grade urothelial carcinoma (LGUC) was significantly lower, risk ratio of sensitivity was 0.54 (0.43-0.66), P<0.001. However, no significant sensitivity improvement was observed with LBC when compared with traditional cytospin cytology, risk ratio was 1.03 (0.94-1.14), P = 0.524.

conclusionDespite LBC having a pooled 58% positive rate for urothelial carcinoma diagnosis in our meta-analysis, no significant improvement in sensitivity was observed based on the studies evaluated. Further research is needed to validate these findings.

Indexed as

Cytological TechniquesCarcinoma, Transitional CellCentrifugationHumansOdds RatioResearch DesignSensitivity and SpecificitySolutionsStaining and LabelingUrineUrologic NeoplasmsSolutions

Identifiers

PMID26241896
PMCPMC4524610
OpenAlexW1945229800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.