ReviewCurrent urology reports2018
Performance Measurement and Quality Improvement Initiatives for Bladder Cancer Care.
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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Nursing Care for the Treatment of Patients with Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Recent Advances and Emerging Innovations in Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor (TURBT) for Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Current Literature.Research and reports in urology · 2025Review
- The global burden of bladder, kidney, and prostate cancers attributable to smoking from 1990 to 2021 and projections for the next two decades: A cross-sectional study.Tobacco induced diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewBladder cancer care is costly due to long surveillance periods for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and comorbidities associated with the surgical treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). We reviewed current evidence-based practices and propose quality metrics for NMIBC and MIBC. RECENT
findingsFor patients with NMIBC, we propose four categories of candidate quality metrics: (1) appropriate use of imaging, (2) re-staging transurethral resection of bladder tumor, (3) perioperative intravesical chemotherapy, and (4) induction and maintenance BCG in high-risk NMIBC. For patients with MIBC, we propose eight candidate quality measures: (1) neoadjuvant chemotherapy, (2) multidisciplinary consultation, (3) urinary diversion teaching, (4) appropriate perioperative antibiotics, (5) venous thromboembolic prophylaxis, (6) lymphadenectomy, (7) monitoring of complications, and (8) inclusion of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. Marked variation in evidence-based practice exists among patients with bladder cancer and represents opportunity for quality improvement. Regional and national physician-led collaboratives may be the best vehicle to achieve quality improvement in bladder cancer.
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.