Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27500198›Full record

ArticleBladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2016

A Systematic Review of the Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Urinary Protein Biomarkers in Urothelial Bladder Cancer.

Jamie J D'Costa, James C Goldsmith, Jayne S Wilson, Richard T Bryan, Douglas G Ward

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Clinical Validation of the Proenkephalin (European urology open science · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Biomarkers in Bladder Cancer Surveillance.Frontiers in surgery · 2021
    Review
  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

5 authors.

Jamie J D'CostaInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences , College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
James C GoldsmithInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences , College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Jayne S WilsonInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Richard T BryanInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences , College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Douglas G WardInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences , College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15958
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For over 80 years, cystoscopy has remained the gold-standard for detecting tumours of the urinary bladder. Since bladder tumours have a tendency to recur and progress, many patients are subjected to repeated cystoscopies during long-term surveillance, with the procedure being both unpleasant for the patient and expensive for healthcare providers. The identification and validation of bladder tumour specific molecular markers in urine could enable tumour detection and reduce reliance on cystoscopy, and numerous classes of biomarkers have been studied. Proteins represent the most intensively studied class of biomolecule in this setting. As an aid to researchers searching for better urinary biomarkers, we report a comprehensive systematic review of the literature and a searchable database of proteins that have been investigated to date. Our objective was to classify these proteins as: 1) those with robustly characterised sensitivity and specificity for bladder cancer detection; 2) those that show potential but further investigation is required; 3) those unlikely to warrant further investigation; and 4) those investigated as prognostic markers. This work should help to prioritise certain biomarkers for rigorous validation, whilst preventing wasted effort on proteins that have shown no association whatsoever with the disease, or only modest biomarker performance despite large-scale efforts at validation.

Indexed as

biomarkerBladder cancerproteinurine

Identifiers

PMID27500198
PMCPMC4969711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.