ArticlePeerJ2021
Application of intra-arterial chemotherapy in high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic factors in T1 high-grade urothelial carcinoma of the bladder with lymphovascular invasion: a retrospective cohort study.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo summarize the current evidence on the effects of intra-arterial chemotherapy (IAC) on high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and compare oncology results with intravesical chemotherapy (IVC).
methodsWe performed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of the primary outcomes of interest by a systematical search of multiple scientific databases in February 2021. The mean difference (MD) and odds ratio (OR) were calculated for continuous and dichotomous variables respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The hazard radio (HR) with 95% CIs was used for overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and progression-free survival (PFS).
resultsA total of six studies with 866 patients were included. For IAC combined with IVC versus IVC alone, statistically significant differences were found regarding tumor recurrence rate (OR: 0.51, 95% CI [0.36∼0.72],
conclusionThe IAC combined with IVC is a safe and effective treatment for high risk NMIBC, with lower rates of recurrence, progression, tumor-specific death, PFS and RFS, and with minor and tolerable events. The effectiveness of the IAC alone is parallel to the IVC alone.
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.