ArticleTranslational cancer research2020
The diagnostic and prognostic value of nuclear matrix protein 22 in bladder cancer.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nanotechnology in Cancer Therapy: How Nanoparticles Are Shaping the Future of Personalized Treatment.ACS nano medicine · 2026Review
- Expanded Performance Comparison of the Oncuria 10-Plex Bladder Cancer Urine Assay Using Three Different Luminex xMAP Instruments.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Unleashing the power of urine‑based biomarkers in diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring of bladder cancer (Review).International journal of oncology · 2025Review
- Bladder cancer risk stratification with the Oncuria 10-plex bead-based urinalysis assay using three different Luminex xMAP instrumentation platforms.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Article
- Bladder cancer risk stratification with the Oncuria 10-plex bead-based urinalysis assay using three different Luminex xMAP instrumentation platforms.Research square · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsThis study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic value of urine nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22) for bladder cancer.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed on 229 patients with bladder cancer who underwent transurethral resection of bladder tumor between 2015 and 2018 in our hospital. The sensitivity of NMP22 was calculated to evaluate the diagnostic value of NMP22. Logistic regression analyses were applied to investigate the prognostic value of NMP22 for pathologic features in bladder cancer.
resultsThe sensitivity of NMP22 for the detection of bladder cancer was 28.82%, and the false negative rate was 71.18%. The sensitivity of NMP22 for the detection of low-grade disease and high-grade disease were 11.11% and 38.51%. NMP22 had significantly higher sensitivity for the detection of high-grade bladder cancer (P<0.001). The sensitivity of NMP22 for the detection of Ta, T1 and T2 disease were 20.78%, 50.85% and 25.00% respectively (Ta refers to noninvasive papillary carcinoma, T1 refers to tumor invades subepithelial connective tissue, T2 refers to tumor invades muscularis propria). NMP22 had significantly higher sensitivity for detection of T1 disease (P<0.001). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis suggested NMP22 might be an independent prognostic factor for high-grade (P<0.001) and T1 disease (P<0.001) in patients with bladder cancer.
conclusionsAlthough the sensitivity of NMP22 was significantly higher in the detection of T1 and high-grade bladder cancer, the false negative rate was high. Besides, the NMP22 might be a prognostic factor for high-grade and T1 bladder cancer, but considering the limitations of this study, further studies are needed.
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.