ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2020
An ensemble approach of urine sediment image analysis and NMP22 test for detection of bladder cancer cells.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of nuclear matrix protein 22 and urine cytology for bladder cancer: A meta-analysis.Diagnostic cytopathology · 2022Pooled it
- The potential diagnosis role of TP53 mutation in advanced bladder cancer: A meta-analysis.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2021Pooled it
- The UF-5000 Atyp.C parameter is an independent risk factor for bladder cancer.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The Clinical Significance of Serum Free Light Chains in Bladder Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- The Role of Androgens and Androgen Receptor in Human Bladder Cancer.Biomolecules · 2021Review
- An ensemble approach of urine sediment image analysis and NMP22 test for detection of bladder cancer cells.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBladder cancer is the eighth most common cancer and the second most common urological cancer in Korean males. Current diagnostic tools for bladder cancer include cystoscopy (an upper tract study), urine cytology, and nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22) test. In this study, we evaluated the detection rate of atypical/malignant urothelial cells in urinary sediment images when flagged for positive NMP22 test.
methodsNMP22 was measured by NMP22 BladderChek Test (Abbott Laboratories) and urine chemical and sediment analysis were performed by fully automated cobas 6500 urine analyzer (Roche Diagnostics). Specimens that met the manual microscopic examination (MME) criteria were then subjected to an on-screen review of images. We subsequently reviewed sediment images and examined under the microscopy for the flagged cases.
resultsOf the 1217 patients, 345 (28.3%) had positive NMP22 results, whereas 872 (71.7%) had negative results. Out of the positive results, 154 (12.7%) were positive and 191 (15.7%) weakly positive for NMP22. Screened review of flagged specimens (ie, positive NMP22 result) with sediment imaging analysis revealed that suspicious urothelial carcinoma cells were detected in only two cases (0.8%). In the NMP22 negative flagged cases, the suspicious neoplastic cells were not found.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that the NMP22 test should be added to the flagging criteria for MME to improve diagnostic accuracy. The combination of urine sediment imaging analysis and NMP22 test can significantly assist technicians in the review of specimens.
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.