Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28824318›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical sciences2017

Urinary UBC Rapid and NMP22 Test for Bladder Cancer Surveillance in Comparison to Urinary Cytology: Results from a Prospective Single-Center Study.

Renate Pichler, Gennadi Tulchiner, Josef Fritz, Georg Schaefer, Wolfgang Horninger, Isabel Heidegger

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Role of Novel Bladder Cancer Diagnostic and Surveillance Biomarkers-What Should a Urologist Really Know?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Vinorelbine in bladder-preserving multimodality treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer-a valid option for cisplatin-unfit patients?Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Renate PichlerDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria.
Gennadi TulchinerDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria.
Josef FritzDepartment of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Health Economics, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria.
Georg SchaeferDepartment of Pathology, Division of General Pathology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria.
Wolfgang HorningerDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria.
Isabel HeideggerDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria.
Universität Innsbruck · ATInnsbruck Medical University · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntigens, NeoplasmBiomarkers, TumorCystoscopyDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNuclear ProteinsPrognosisUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsAntigens, NeoplasmBiomarkers, Tumornuclear matrix protein 22Nuclear ProteinsUBC antigenbiomarkersBladder CancercytologyNMP22recurrencesurveillanceUBCurine markers

Identifiers

PMID28824318
PMCPMC5562188
OpenAlexW2741762196

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.