Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34295760›Full record

ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2021

Endoscopic surveillance for bladder cancer: a systematic review of contemporary worldwide practices.

Beth Russell, Pinky Kotecha, Ramesh Thurairaja, Rajesh Nair, Sachin Malde, Pardeep Kumar, Muhammad Shamim Khan

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Beth RussellTranslational Oncology and Urology Research, King's College London, London, UK.
Pinky KotechaTranslational Oncology and Urology Research, King's College London, London, UK.
Ramesh ThurairajaDepartment of Urology, Guy's and St. Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Rajesh NairDepartment of Urology, Guy's and St. Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Sachin MaldeDepartment of Urology, Guy's and St. Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Pardeep KumarDepartment of Urology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Muhammad Shamim KhanDepartment of Urology, Guy's and St. Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBKing's College London · GBRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this systematic review was to identify the current endoscopic surveillance strategies in use across the world and to determine whether these were sufficient or if any recommendations for changes in the guidelines could be made. This review focused on the cystoscopic follow-up of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) patients and muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) patients who had undergone bladder sparing treatments.

methodsA literature search was carried out on Medline and Embase using OVID gateway according to a pre-defined protocol. Systematic screening of the identified studies was carried out by two authors. Quality assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs critical appraisal tools. Data was extracted on various aspects including the follow-up regime utilised, patients included, outcomes investigated and a summary of the results. The studies were compared in a narrative nature.

resultsA total of 2,604 studies were identified from the search strategy, of which 14 were deemed suitable for inclusion following the screening process. The studies identified were from nine countries and were mainly observational or qualitative. There was a huge variation in the follow-up regimes utilised within the studies with no clear consensus as to which regime was the most suitable. However, all studies utilised an initial cystoscopy at three months post-TURBT. No studies were identified which investigated the endoscopic follow-up strategies for MIBC patients who opted for bladder conservation with chemoradiation.

conclusionsThere is no universally accepted protocol for endoscopic follow-up of patients with NMIBC bladder cancer. Guidance on cystoscopic monitoring of bladder in patients who have undergone chemoradiation for MIBC is also lacking.

Indexed as

bladder cancerEndoscopicfollow-upsurveillance

Identifiers

PMID34295760
PMCPMC8261410
OpenAlexW3165733590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.