Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32434491›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2020

Insight into bladder cancer care: study protocol of a large nationwide prospective cohort study (BlaZIB).

T M Ripping, L A Kiemeney, L M C van Hoogstraten, J A Witjes, K K H Aben, BlaZIB study group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2020. 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. Predicting health-related quality of life two years post-diagnosis across seven cancer types: using machine learning to identify vulnerable patients.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Development of a prediction model for clinically-relevant fatigue: a multi-cancer approach.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

6 authors.

T M RippingDepartment of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
L A KiemeneyRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
L M C van HoogstratenDepartment of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
J A WitjesDepartment of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
K K H AbenDepartment of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht, the Netherlands. katja.aben@radboudumc.nl.
BlaZIB study group

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding IKNL 2015-7914
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the embedding of bladder cancer management in European guidelines, large variation in clinical practice exists for applied diagnostics and treatments. This variation may affect patients' outcomes including complications, disease recurrence, progression, survival, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). Lack of detailed clinical data and HRQL data hampers a comprehensive evaluation of bladder cancer care. Through prospective data registration, this study aims to provide insight in bladder cancer care in the Netherlands and to identify barriers and modulators of optimal bladder cancer care.

methodsThis study is a nationwide prospective cohort study including all patients who were newly diagnosed with high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (HR-NMIBC; Tis and/or T1, N0, M0/x) or non-metastatic muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC; ≥T2, N0/x-3, M0/x) in the Netherlands between November 1st 2017 and October 31st 2019. Extensive data on patient- and tumor characteristics, diagnostics, treatment and follow-up up to 2 years after diagnosis will be collected prospectively from electronic health records in the participating hospitals by data managers of the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). Additionally, patients will be requested to participate in a HRQL survey shortly after diagnosis and subsequently at 6, 12 and 24 months. The HRQL survey includes six standardized questionnaires, e.g. SCQ Comorbidity score, EQ-5D-5 L, EORTC-QLQ-C30, EORTC-QLQ-BLM30, EORTC-QLQ-NMIBC24 and BCI. Variation in care and deviation from the European guidelines will be assessed through descriptive analyses and multivariable multilevel analyses. Survival analyses will be used to assess the association between variation in care and relevant outcomes such as survival. DISCUSSION: The results of this observational study will guide modifications of clinical practice and/or adaptation of guidelines and may set the agenda for new specific research questions in the management of bladder cancer.

trial registrationRetrospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register. Trial identification number: NL8106. Registered on October 22nd 2019.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeFollow-Up StudiesHumansNeeds AssessmentNetherlandsPractice Guidelines as TopicPrognosisProspective StudiesQuality of Health CareUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsBladder cancerGuidelinesProspective cohort studyQuality of careQuality of lifeStudy protocol

Identifiers

PMID32434491
PMCPMC7240996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.