ArticleTurkish journal of urology2021
Guideline of guidelines: Muscle-invasive bladder cancer.
Article in Turkish journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of morbidity and mortality after radical cystectomy between individuals older and younger than 80 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International urology and nephrology · 2024Pooled it
- Letter to the Editor: Wallace versus Bricker anastomosis for urinary diversion after radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Preoperative Gamma-Glutamyltransferase-to-Lymphocyte Ratio as an Independent Prognostic Biomarker in Patients Undergoing Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Single-cell transcriptomics identifies fibroblast associated immune heterogeneity and prognostic signatures in bladder cancer.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Bladder preservation alternatives in non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder tumor: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Asian journal of urology · 2025Review
- Histological and immunohistochemical approaches to molecular subtyping in muscle-invasive bladder cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Development of a Bladder Cancer-on-a-Chip Model to Assess Bladder Cancer Cell Invasiveness.Cancers · 2024Article
- The Assessment of SF-36 Survey for Quality-of-Life Measurement after Radical Cystectomy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The Current Progress and Future Options of Multiple Therapy and Potential Biomarkers for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Mapping the tumor microenvironment in bladder cancer and exploring the prognostic genes by single-cell RNA sequencing.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Muscle-invasive bladder cancer accounts for 25% of bladder cancer cases and represents a spectrum of disease, which can result in significant morbidity and mortality for anyone affected. Current management has evolved through years of research and clinical practice. It is based on a risk-benefit approach, which is often tailored to the individual requirements of patients and involves cystectomy, neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies, and multimodal surveillance paradigms to achieve high survival rates. Multiple guidelines exist to assist the clinicians in this decision-making process, but their adherence is often variable. In this article, we aimed to review the 4 most commonly used guidelines from the European Association of Urology, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the American Urological Association.
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.