ReviewCurrent urology2021
Comparison of the clinical usefulness of different urinary tests for the initial detection of bladder cancer: a systematic review.
Review in Current urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in Label-Free Detection of Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Critical Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- New Challenges in Bladder Cancer Diagnosis: How Biosensing Tools Can Lead to Population Screening Opportunities.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Bladder Epicheck Test: A Novel Tool to Support Urothelial Carcinoma Diagnosis in Urine Samples.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Artificial Intelligence in the Advanced Diagnosis of Bladder Cancer-Comprehensive Literature Review and Future Advancement.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
- Article
- Mutations in genes encoding innate immune molecules identified in bladder cancer samples as potential biomarkers for immunotherapy with BCG and agonists.Frontiers in urology · 2023Article
- AHNAK2 Urinary Protein Expression as Potential Biomarker for Bladder Cancer Detection: A Pilot Study.Turkish journal of urology · 2022Article
- Article
- Xpert Bladder Cancer Monitor May Avoid Cystoscopies in Patients Under "Active Surveillance" for Recurrent Bladder Cancer (BIAS Project): Longitudinal Cohort Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Improved Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Bladder Cancer with an Electronic Nose: A Large Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- PLAUR as a Potential Biomarker Associated with Immune Infiltration in Bladder Urothelial Carcinoma.Journal of inflammation research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe standard initial approach in patients with hematuria or other symptoms suggestive of bladder cancer (BC) is a combination of cystoscopy and urine cytology (UC); however, UC has low sensitivity particularly in low-grade tumors. The aim of the present review was to critically analyze and compare results in the literature of promising molecular urinary tests for the initial diagnosis of BC.
methodsWe searched in the Medline and Cochrane Library databases for literature from January 2009 to January 2019, following the PRISMAguidelines.
resultsIn terms of sensitivity, ImmunoCyt showed the highest mean and median value, higher than UC. All tests analyses showed higher mean and median sensitivity when compared with UC. In terms of specificity, only UroVysion and Microsatellite analyses showed mean and median values similar to those of UC, whereas for all other tests, the specificity was lower than UC. It is evident that the sensitivity of UC is particularly low in low grade BC. Urinary tests mainly had improved sensitivity when compared to UC, and ImmunoCyt and UroVysion had the highest improvement in low grade tumors.
conclusionsMost of the proposed molecular markers were able to improve the sensitivity with similar or lower specificity when compared to UC. However, variability of results among the different studies was strong. Thus, as of now, none of these markers presented evidences so as to be accepted by international guidelines for diagnosis of BC.
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.