ArticlePloS one2015
External Validation of Models for Prediction of Lymph Node Metastasis in Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder.
Article in PloS one, 2015. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of Bladder Cancer Patients with Clinical Evidence of Lymph Node Invasion (cN+).Cancers · 2022Review
- Predictive Nomogram and Risk Factors for Lymph Node Metastasis in Bladder Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Online tools for patient counseling in bladder and kidney cancer-ready for prime time?Translational andrology and urology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo externally validate models to predict LN metastsis; Karakiewicz nomogram, clinical nodal staging score (cNSS), and pathologic nodal staging score (pNSS) using a different cohort. MATERIALS AND
methodsClinicopathologic data from 500 patients who underwent radical cystectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy were analyzed. The overall predictive values of models were compared with the criteria of overall performance, discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness.
resultsPresence of pN+ stages was recorded in 117 patients (23.4%). Agreement between clinical and pathologic stage was noted in 174 (34.8%). Based on Nagelkerke's peudo-R2 and brier score, pNSS demonstrated best overall performance. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, showed that pNSS had the best discriminatory ability. In all models, calibration was on average correct (calibration-in-the-large coefficient = zero). On decision curve analysis, pNSS performed better than other models across a wide range of threshold probabilities.
conclusionsWhen compared to pNSS, current precystectomy models such as the Karakiewicz nomogram and cNSS cannot predict the probability of LN metastases accurately. The findings suggest that the application of pNSS to Asian patients is feasible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.