ReviewExperimental and therapeutic medicine2021
Tumoral markers in bladder cancer (Review).
Review in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional Stratification and Postoperative Outcomes in Endobronchial Tumor Surgery: A Dedicated Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Evaluation of expression profiles of APOA4, CEACAM1, CD147, DJ-1/PARK7, Gamma-synuclein, S100A1, and Stathmin-1 in urothelial carcinomas using immunohistochemical assays.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- New Perspectives on the Role of Liquid Biopsy in Bladder Cancer: Applicability to Precision Medicine.Cancers · 2024Review
- Molecular Biomarkers of Bladder Cancer: A Mini-Review.Physiological research · 2023Review
- Expression and prognostic value of carbonic anhydrase IX (CA-IX) in bladder urothelial carcinoma.BMC urology · 2022Article
- Review
- Identification of Immune-Related Genes Associated With Bladder Cancer Based on Immunological Characteristics and Their Correlation With the Prognosis.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bladder tumors are frequently diagnosed urologic malignant diseases with an extremely high recurrence rate compared to other neoplastic tumors. Urothelial bladder carcinomas are mostly identified in their incipient form, as non-muscle invasive, but despite that, a third of them develop into aggressive recurrent disease. The diagnosis of bladder carcinoma at this moment is established using cytology and cystoscopy and is a great challenge for clinicians due to the lack of sensitivity. Urinary biomarkers could improve and enhance the diagnosis and screening techniques and determine a more accurate recurrence rate. However, bladder cancer is a heterogeneous disease and the existence of a single marker test with reduced cost is unlikely; thus, until then, the use of a panel of markers to obtain valuable information is inevitable even though suboptimal for use. To improve this deadlock, new biomarker panels should be identified and prepared to equalize the cost-efficiency balance. The present paper is a literature review concerning the most commonly used tumor markers in urinary bladder cancer as well as the most commonly encountered genetic modifications in such patients.
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.