Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34404373›Full record

SynthesisBMC urology2021

The incidence and prevalence of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review.

Ahmed Soualhi, Elke Rammant, Gincy George, Beth Russell, Deborah Enting, Rajesh Nair, Mieke Van Hemelrijck, Cecilia Bosco

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ahmed SoualhiUniversity Hospital Hairmyres, Glasgow, UK. asoualhi@doctors.org.uk.
Elke RammantTranslational Oncology and Urology Research, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Gincy GeorgeTranslational Oncology and Urology Research, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Beth RussellTranslational Oncology and Urology Research, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Deborah EntingDepartment of Oncology, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Rajesh NairDepartment of Urology, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Mieke Van HemelrijckTranslational Oncology and Urology Research, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Cecilia BoscoTranslational Oncology and Urology Research, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
King's College London · GBGuy's Hospital · GBHairmyres Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUpper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is a rare urological cancer that is still an important public health concern in many areas around the world. Although UTUC has been linked to a number of risk factors, to our knowledge no systematic review has been published on the overall incidence and prevalence of de-novo UTUC. This review aimed to examine the global epidemiology of UTUC to provide clinicians and public health specialists a better understanding of UTUC.

methodsA systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Science using a detailed search strategy. Observational epidemiological studies describing the incidence and prevalence of de-novo UTUC in adults were included, and the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist was used for critical appraisal and data extraction of the studies selected.

resultsThe systematic search identified 3506 papers, of which 59 papers were included for qualitative synthesis. The studies selected included data ranging from the years 1943 to 2018. A comprehensive qualitative synthesis of the data was performed. UTUC incidence generally varied according to age (higher with increasing age), sex (unclear), race (unclear), calendar time (increased, stable, or decreased according to region), geographical region (higher in Asian countries), occupation (higher in seamen and printers), and other population characteristics. Prevalence was only reported by one study, which showed UTUC to have the highest incidence of the rare urogenital cancers in Europe.

conclusionThis systematic review highlights an increased incidence of UTUC in certain groups, including increasing age and certain occupations such as seamen. The incidence of UTUC also varies between certain geographical regions. The trend of UTUC incidence for sex, race, and calendar time is less clear due to a wide variety of metrics used by the studies identified. More studies are also required on the prevalence of UTUC to understand its disease burden. Trial registration This review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number CRD42019134255).

Indexed as

Age DistributionCarcinomaColorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary NonpolyposisComorbidityGeographyHumansIncidenceOccupationsPrevalenceRace FactorsSex DistributionTime FactorsUrologic NeoplasmsEpidemiologyIncidenceUpper tract urothelial carcinomaUrological oncology

Identifiers

PMID34404373
PMCPMC8369798
OpenAlexW3193631537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.