ReviewNature reviews. Urology2019
The future of clinical trials in urological oncology.
Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in the Management of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Is There Still a Debate?Current urology reports · 2021Review
- Stability and anti-proliferative properties of biologically active compounds extracted from Cistus L. after sterilization treatments.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Competitive glucose metabolism as a target to boost bladder cancer immunotherapy.Nature reviews. Urology · 2020Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Well-designed clinical trials in urological oncology help to guide treatment decisions and aid in counselling patients, ultimately serving to improve outcomes. Since the term evidence-based medicine was first used by Gordon Guyatt in 1991, a renewed emphasis on methodology, transparent trial design and study reporting has helped to improve clinical research and in turn, the landscape of medical literature. Novel clinical trial designs (including multi-arm, multistage trials, basket and umbrella studies and research from big data sources, such as electronic health records, administrative claims databases and quality monitoring registries) are well suited to advance innovation in urological oncology. Existing urological clinical trials are often limited by small numbers, are statistically underpowered and many face difficulties with accrual. Thus, efforts to improve trial design are of considerable importance. The development and use of standard outcome sets and adherence to reporting guidelines offer researchers the opportunity to guide value-oriented care, minimize research waste and efficiently identify solutions to the unanswered questions in urology cancer care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31605037What 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.