Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30218308›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2019

SIU-ICUD on bladder cancer: pathology.

Eva Compérat, Marek Babjuk, Ferran Algaba, Mahul Amin, Fadi Brimo, David Grignon, Donna Hansel, Ondra Hes, Bernard Malavaud, Victor Reuter and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

11 authors.

Eva CompératDepartment of Pathology, Hopital Tenon, HUEP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France. evacomperat@gmail.com.
Marek BabjukDepartment of Urology, Hospital Motol and 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Ferran AlgabaDepartment of Pathology, Fundacio Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain.
Mahul AminDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA.
Fadi BrimoMcGill University Health Center, Glen Site, Office E4-4188, 1001 Decarie Blvd, Montréal, QC, H4A 3J1, Canada.
David GrignonDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, IUH Pathology Laboratory, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Donna HanselDepartments of Pathology and Urology, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Ondra HesCharles University and University Hospital Plzen, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
Bernard MalavaudDepartment of Urology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Victor ReuterDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Theo van der KwastLaboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many changes have been made during these last years and concepts for understanding bladder cancer have evolved. We make an update with the latest findings of the WHO (World Health Organistaion) 2016, ICCR (International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting) and other official organisms and try to show the latest developments. In this document we provide new consensus guidelines and insights. We kept this document short and concise providing consensus guidelines to clinicians for the best patient care, it should be easy to understand for a non pathologists. We focussed on several burning issues, such as the anatomical and histological understanding of the bladder wall, the prognostic significance of grading and the most challenging problems in staging, we underline our needs from the clinicians such as clinical information, we further discuss the histological subtypes of bladder cancer, which is an extremely important issue in the light of molecular classifications and give prognostic insights. Furthermore, we discuss the ICCR worldwide consensus reporting, urinary cytology with the Paris system and several issues such as frozen section specimen.

Indexed as

ConsensusHumansNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingPractice Guidelines as TopicSocieties, MedicalUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsGradeHistologyPathologyStage

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.