ReviewJournal of bone oncology2015
Use of urinary markers in cancer setting: A literature review.
Review in Journal of bone oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn bone metastases, the disruption of normal bone processes results in increased resorption and formation rates, which can often be quantitatively measured by biomarkers in the urine and blood. The purpose of this review is to summarize relevant studies of urinary markers used as a diagnostic and/or prognostic tool, as well as its potential and advances in directing therapy.
methodsA literature search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to July 2014), EMBASE (1950 to 2014 week 30) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (3rd Quarter 2014) to identify studies that detailed the use of urinary markers in the cancer setting, specifically involving markers for bone metastases. Search terms included "urinary markers", "cancer", and "bone metastases".
resultsA total of 35 articles, with 24 original studies, were identified. In general, urinary markers can be used to detect early signs of bone metastases prior to skeletal imaging, but still must be used in conjunction with imaging to avoid false positive results. The use of urinary markers, such as N-telopeptide, as a prognostic tool remains controversial, but can provide information on the relative risk of skeletal related events (SREs), disease progression, as well as death. Finally, while urinary markers have shown to be potentially useful in confirming the efficacy of bone metastases treatments, exploring the appropriate dosages for treatment, and directing therapy, it is still unclear to what extent urinary markers should be reduced by.
conclusionThe potential use of urinary markers in the management of bone metastases is promising as it can allow for earlier and more convenient detection of bone metastases in comparison to other techniques. However, additional studies involving prospective clinical trials are suggested to further examine the potential of urinary markers in developing appropriate treatment strategies and endpoints, especially in developing a clearer protocol on the extent urinary markers should be reduced by to correlate with achievement of clinical benefit.
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.