Validation of a new prognostic model to easily predict outcome in renal cell carcinoma: the GRANT score applied to the ASSURE trial population.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. A preoperative CT-based radiological score for predicting recurrence in papillary renal cell carcinoma: a multicenter validation study.Insights into imaging · 2025
   Article
2. Patients with high nuclear grade pT1-ccRCC are more suitable for radical nephrectomy than partial nephrectomy: a multicenter retrospective study using propensity score.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024
   Article
3. Prognostic value of preoperative microscopic hematuria in patients with non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma who underwent nephrectomy.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  Validation of a new prognostic model to easily predict outcome in renal cell carcinoma: the GRANT score applied to the ASSURE trial population.2017

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.