Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31410520›Full record

SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2019

Biomarkers in the diagnosis and symptom assessment of patients with bladder pain syndrome: a systematic review.

Thais F Magalhaes, Edmund C Baracat, Stergios K Doumouchtsis, Jorge M Haddad

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Understanding bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis.International urogynecology journal · 2020
    Article
  13. Advances in urinary biomarker discovery in urological research.Investigative and clinical urology · 2020
    Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Thais F MagalhaesUrogynecology Division, Discipline of Gynecology, Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo, 255 Dr Eneas de Carvalho Aguiar Ave, 10th floor, Sao Paulo, 05402-000, Brazil. thaisfdemagalhaes@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4148-2571
Edmund C BaracatUrogynecology Division, Discipline of Gynecology, Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo, 255 Dr Eneas de Carvalho Aguiar Ave, 10th floor, Sao Paulo, 05402-000, Brazil.
Stergios K DoumouchtsisEpsom & St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK.
Jorge M HaddadUrogynecology Division, Discipline of Gynecology, Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo, 255 Dr Eneas de Carvalho Aguiar Ave, 10th floor, Sao Paulo, 05402-000, Brazil.
Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo · BRSt George's, University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisBladder pain syndrome (BPS) is a disease of unknown etiology defined as an unpleasant sensation related to the bladder, associated with lower urinary tract symptoms of more than 6 weeks' duration, in the absence of any identifiable causes. Despite its impact on quality of life (QoL) and socioeconomic burden, there are no objective methods for the diagnosis or assessment of therapeutic response. We systematically reviewed biomarkers associated with BPS to update the current knowledge on this issue.

methodsA systematic review of the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, LILACS, SCOPUS, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was conducted following the PRISMA statement. Original articles investigating biomarkers for the diagnosis or symptom assessment of patients with BPS were assessed; no language restrictions were applied. Animal or post-mortem studies were excluded.

resultsOf the 478 records retrieved, 11 articles were included. MIF, NGF, Etio-S, APF, and a combined methylhistamine/Il-6 model were increased in BPS urine samples versus controls. Also increased were glyceraldehyde in stool, in addition to the expression of some genes (ARID1A, ARF, CHAT, eNOS, GLI-1, iNOS, MCP-1, NGF, WNT-8A, WNT-10A), nerve density, IL-16, VCAM-1, and ICAM-1 in bladder tissue specimens. In contrast, some fecal bacteria, expression of other genes (CHT, HB-EGF, OCT-1, SMRT-1, WNT11) in the bladder urothelium, and urinary DNA methylation in CpG-sites, MCP-3, G5P1, and HB-EGF were decreased in BPS. As none of the biomarkers was studied more than once, a Forest plot could not be constructed. Only 4 articles reported the relation of biomarkers to symptom scores.

conclusionsPotential biomarkers for BPS in urine, stool, and bladder biopsy specimens are described. Further research is needed before their use in clinical practice.

Indexed as

BiomarkersCystitis, InterstitialHumansSymptom AssessmentBiomarkersDiagnosisInterstitial cystitisSigns and symptoms

Identifiers

PMID31410520
OpenAlexW2967888656

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.