ReviewFrontiers in surgery2021
Bladder Cancer Sample Handling and Reporting: Pathologist's Point of View.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single twistable tendon-driven continuum robots.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Pathological assessment of morcellated tissue after ERBT: insights from a two-round Delphi survey.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- The Handling and Sampling of Radical Cystectomy Specimens: A Standardized Approach for Pathological Evaluation.Methods and protocols · 2025Review
- Bladder Cancer and Artificial Intelligence: Emerging Applications.The Urologic clinics of North America · 2024Review
- Recent advances in three-dimensional ultrasound virtual cystoscopy in modeling and local staging for urothelial carcinoma with histopathological correlation: a cohort prospective study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
- Recent Advances in the Management of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Novel Biomarkers and Targeted Therapies.Cancers · 2023Review
- Precise diagnosis and treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer - A clinical perspective.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Pathology of Urologic Cancers.Cancers · 2022Article
- Overview of histologic variants of urothelial carcinoma: current trends and narrative review on treatment outcomes.Translational andrology and urology · 2022Review
- Under-reporting of carcinoma in situ in patients with high-grade papillary non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this narrative review is to provide adequate information on handling and reporting of the bladder cancer samples to improve the closely collaboration between pathologists and urologists. The main (but not exclusive) research tool used was PubMed and 87 references were selected and quoted in the text. We have considered handling of biopsies, transurethral resection (TUR), and cystectomy specimens to summarize the different methods of sampling and the related issues. Moreover, we considered and discussed the main prognostic factors, such as histological tumor type, grade, and stage of bladder cancer, that should be described in the pathological report. In addition, critical issues encountered in the interpretation of histological samples were discussed.
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.