ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2020
Outcomes of endoscopic management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Kidney-Sparing Surgery for Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma-Modalities, Outcomes, and Limitations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) remains the gold-standard treatment for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), a growing volume of literature surrounding endoscopic, organ-sparing procedures has developed over the past few decades. Based on this, endoscopic management of UTUC has gained acceptance as a standard of care approach, particularly among those with low-risk disease or with imperative indications for organ preservation. As a rare disease, however, data is mostly restricted to retrospective single institution series with relatively small numbers. Therefore, comparative outcomes of endoscopic management to RNU remain incompletely defined. Furthermore, the comparative utility of endoscopic approaches (ureteroscopy versus percutaneous resection) and topical therapy following resection lacks prospective analysis. In this article we review the available literature on endoscopic management of UTUC.
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.