Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34729962›Full record

SynthesisInvestigative and clinical urology2021

Intravesical gemcitabine for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: An abridged Cochrane Review.

Mi Ah Han, Philipp Maisch, Jae Hung Jung, Jun Eul Hwang, Vikram Narayan, Anne Cleves, Eu Chang Hwang, Philipp Dahm

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Investigative and clinical urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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 8 institutions in 4 countries.

Mi Ah HanDepartment of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Chosun University, Gwangju, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-1213-6952
Philipp MaischDepartment of Urology, Rechtsder Isar Medical Center, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8104-167X
Jae Hung JungDepartment of Urology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-4990-7098
Jun Eul HwangDepartment of Hematology-Oncology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-3768-4149
Vikram NarayanDepartment of Urology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3731-4209
Anne ClevesVelindre NHS Trust, Cardiff University Library Services, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9899-7894
Eu Chang HwangDepartment of Urology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea. urohwang@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-2031-124X
Philipp DahmUrology Section, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2819-2553
Chonnam National University · KRChonnam National University Hospital · KRChosun University · KREmory University · USTUM Klinikum · DEUniversity of Minnesota · USVelindre NHS Trust · GBYonsei University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the comparative effectiveness and toxicity of intravesical gemcitabine instillation for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). MATERIALS AND

methodsWe performed a comprehensive literature search on 11 September 2020. We included RCTs in which participants received intravesical gemcitabine for primary or recurrent NMIBC. Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes (time to recurrence, time to progression, grade III to V adverse events) and the secondary outcomes (time to death from bladder cancer, time to death from any cause, grade I or II adverse events, and disease-specific quality of life). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

resultsWe found seven studies with 1,222 participants. Gemcitabine may reduce the risk of recurrence over time, but may have a similar effect on progression and grade III to V adverse events compared to saline. Gemcitabine may reduce recurrence and progression compared to mitomycin. We are uncertain about the effect of gemcitabine on the grade III to V adverse events compared to mitomycin. Gemcitabine may reduce recurrence and progression compared to giving BCG again in recurrent high-risk NMIBC after BCG treatment.

conclusionsBased on the findings of this review, gemcitabine may have a favorable impact on recurrence and progression-free survival than saline and mitomycin but we are uncertain about how major adverse events compare. The same is true when comparing gemcitabine to BCG in individuals with high-risk diseases who have previously failed BCG.

Indexed as

Administration, IntravesicalUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsAntimetabolites, AntineoplasticComparative Effectiveness ResearchDeoxycytidineGemcitabineHumansNeoplasm InvasivenessOutcome Assessment, Health CareTreatment OutcomeAntimetabolites, AntineoplasticDeoxycytidineGemcitabineAdministration, intravesicalGemcitabineSystematic reviewUrinary bladder neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID34729962
PMCPMC8566788
OpenAlexW3201049360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.