Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30328534›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2018

Current Use and Promise of Urinary Markers for Urothelial Cancer.

William Tabayoyong, Ashish M Kamat

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Role of Long Non-coding RNAs on Bladder Cancer.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Prognostic Role ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Urinary hyaluronic acid: a versatile marker of bladder cancer.International urology and nephrology · 2020
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

2 authors.

William TabayoyongThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd. Unit 1373, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Ashish M KamatThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd. Unit 1373, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. akamat@mdanderson.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewWe summarize the current literature regarding the available urinary biomarkers for the detection and surveillance of bladder cancer. RECENT

findingsFour urinary biomarkers have FDA approval for the detection of bladder cancer; however, they have not supplanted cystoscopy and urine cytology as the gold standard. Recent technological advances in next-generation sequencing have allowed the field of urinary biomarker research to move beyond protein biomarkers and now include genomic, transcriptomic, and epigenetic panels. The search for a noninvasive, inexpensive urinary biomarker for the detection of bladder cancer that can replace cystoscopy and cytology continues. There are several promising genomic, transcriptomic, and epigenetic marker panels in development; however, these new tests require further prospective validation before widespread clinical implementation.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Transitional CellHumansUrinalysisUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsUrineBiomarkers, TumorBladder cancerUrinary biomarkerUrothelial cancer

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.