ArticleJournal of internal medicine2019
Development and validation of a haematuria cancer risk score to identify patients at risk of harbouring cancer.
Article in Journal of internal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02676180 (A Prospective Observational Study to Determine the Negative Predictive Value of UroMark to Rule Out the Presence of Bladder Cancer in Patients With Haematuria.), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 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.
A Prospective Observational Study to Determine the Negative Predictive Value of UroMark to Rule Out the Presence of Bladder Cancer in Patients With Haematuria.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Risk prediction models for symptomatic patients with bladder and kidney cancer: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022Pooled it
- Assessment of Diagnostic Yield of Cystoscopy and Computed Tomographic Urography for Urinary Tract Cancers in Patients Evaluated for Microhematuria: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2021Pooled it
- Quality of the diagnostic process in patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of bladder or kidney cancer: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- Multicentre real-world evaluation of the Haematuria Cancer Risk Score to risk-stratify the detection of bladder cancer in patients referred from primary care.BJUI compass · 2026Article
- Hematuria Cancer Risk Score in Combination With Oncuria-Detect for Patients Undergoing Evaluation for Hematuria.Urology · 2026Article
- Article
- Point-Based Prediction Model for Bladder Cancer Risk in Diabetes: A Random Survival Forest-Guided Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Development and Validation of a Dynamic Nomogram for Predicting 3-Month Mortality in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
- Article
- A simplified nomogram to assess risk of bladder cancer in patients with a new diagnosis of microscopic hematuria.Urologic oncology · 2020Article
- Development and validation of a haematuria cancer risk score to identify patients at risk of harbouring cancer.Journal of internal medicine · 2019Article
- Evaluation of Hematuria in a Large Public Health Care System.Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2019Article
- Individualized Prediction Of Stroke-Associated Pneumonia For Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke.Clinical interventions in aging · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA lack of consensus exists amongst national guidelines regarding who should be investigated for haematuria. Type of haematuria and age-specific thresholds are frequently used to guide referral for the investigation of haematuria.
objectivesTo develop and externally validate the haematuria cancer risk score (HCRS) to improve patient selection for the investigation of haematuria.
methodsDevelopment cohort comprise of 3539 prospectively recruited patients recruited at 40 UK hospitals (DETECT 1; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02676180) and validation cohort comprise of 656 Swiss patients. All patients were aged >18 years and referred to hospital for the evaluation of visible and nonvisible haematuria. Sensitivity and specificity of the HCRS in the validation cohort were derived from a cut-off identified from the discovery cohort.
resultsPatient age, gender, type of haematuria and smoking history were used to develop the HCRS. HCRS validation achieves good discrimination (AUC 0.835; 95% CI: 0.789-0.880) and calibration (calibration slope = 1.215) with no significant overfitting (P = 0.151). The HCRS detected 11.4% (n = 8) more cancers which would be missed by UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines. The American Urological Association guidelines would identify all cancers with a specificity of 12.6% compared to 30.5% achieved by the HCRS. All patients with upper tract cancers would have been identified.
conclusionThe HCRS offers good discriminatory accuracy which is superior to existing guidelines. The simplicity of the model would facilitate adoption and improve patient and physician decision-making.
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.