Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29130146›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2017

Recent Developments in the Search for Urinary Biomarkers in Bladder Cancer.

Aaron Leiblich

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Suppressive effect of platycodin D on bladder cancer through microRNA-129-5p-mediated PABPC1/PI3K/AKT axis inactivation.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2021
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aaron LeiblichNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, UK. aaron.leiblich@ox.ac.uk.
John Radcliffe Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review aims to evaluate research surrounding the utility of urinary biomarkers to detect bladder cancer and predict recurrence. RECENT

findingsRecent research has focussed on the evaluation of genetic markers found in urine to provide diagnostic and prognostic information. Furthermore, the isolation and characterisation of extracellular vesicles (EVs) from the urine patients with bladder cancer provide an exciting new development in biomarker research that is set to expand in the coming years. Current urinary biomarker research is a broad field that encompasses the evaluation of urinary proteins, DNA, RNA and EVs to detect signatures that can be used to predict the presence of bladder cancer and provide prognostic information. EVs in particular offer an exciting and novel perspective in the search for accurate bladder cancer biomarkers.

Indexed as

BiomarkersExtracellular VesiclesHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPrognosisUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsBiomarkersBladder cancerExosomesExtracellular vesiclesMicroRNAUrinary biomarkers

Identifiers

PMID29130146
PMCPMC5682315
OpenAlexW2767817687

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.