ArticleOncotarget2017
Evaluation of the NMP22 BladderChek test for detecting bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
47 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Integrated assessment of non-invasive diagnostic tools for bladder cancer: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- AI predicting recurrence in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: systematic review with study strengths and weaknesses.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Critical Appraisal of Decision Models Used for the Economic Evaluation of Bladder Cancer Screening and Diagnosis: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- Integrating clinically actionable biomarkers into bladder cancer care - recommendations from the International Bladder Cancer Group.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- Nanotechnology in Cancer Therapy: How Nanoparticles Are Shaping the Future of Personalized Treatment.ACS nano medicine · 2026Review
- Detection of bladder cancer in patients with microscopic hematuria using Oncuria-Detect: results of a prospective, multicenter international study.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Serum Trimethylamine-International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Urine-derived induced pluripotent stem cells for non-invasive diagnosis of bladder cancer.Journal of Cancer · 2026Review
- Integrated Proteogenomic Approach for Discovering Potential Biomarkers in Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Low-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: molecular landscape, treatment strategies and emerging therapies.Nature reviews. Urology · 2025Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of urinary PENK methylation test for urothelial and other cancers: A prospective study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Diagnosis of early-stage bladder cancer via unprocessed urine samples at the point of care.Nature biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Review
- New Trends and Future Perspectives in the Diagnosis of Urothelial Carcinoma: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Urinary DNA-methylation and protein biomarkers identify urothelial carcinoma among other genitourinary diseases and cancer-free individuals.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Article
- Review
- Urine Biopsy as Dynamic Biomarker to Enhance Clinical Staging of Bladder Cancer in Radical Cystectomy Candidates.JCO precision oncology · 2024Article
- Advances in Liquid Biopsy for Diagnosis of Bladder Cancer.International neurourology journal · 2024Article
- Mini-Review: Current Bladder Cancer Treatment-The Need for Improvement.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Bladder cancer.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe examined the usefulness of the nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22) BladderChek test for detecting bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsA literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The diagnostic accuracy of the NMP22 BladderChek test was evaluated via pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under curve (AUC). Inter-study heterogeneity was explored using meta-regression and subgroup analyses.
resultsWe included 23 studies in the systematic review and 19 in the quantitative meta-analysis. Overall sensitivity and specificity were 56% (52-59%) and 88% (87-89%), respectively; pooled PLR and NLR were 4.36 (3.02-6.29) and 0.51 (0.40-0.66), respectively; DOR was 9.29 (5.55-15.55) with an AUC of 0.8295. The mean sensitivity for Ta, T1, ≥ T2, Tis, G1, G2, and G3 disease was 13.68%, 29.49%, 74.03%, 34.62%, 44.16%, 56.25%, and 67.34%, respectively.
conclusionsThe NMP22 BladderChek test shows good discrimination ability for detecting bladder cancer and a high-specificity algorithm that can be used for early detection to rule out patients with higher bladder cancer risk. It also has better potential for screening higher-grade and higher-stage tumors, and better diagnostic performance in Asians.
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.