ArticleTurkish journal of urology2021
Chemoresection by mitomycin C compared to transurethral resection of bladder tumor in patients with recurrent nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Turkish journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Some studies suggest that chemoresection with mitomycin C (MMC) is comparable to transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) in the management of recurrent nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). In this meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of MMC and TURBT in recurrent NMIBC. A search was conducted for studies published in English in the electronic databases of MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, ProQuest, System for information on Grey Literature, and ClinicalTrials.gov, with no publication date restrictions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of bias 2 tool for randomized controlled trials and Risk of Bias inNon-Randomized Studies of Interventions-I tool for observational studies. Data analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.4 software. Three studies were included in this systematic review(total participants is 291); two studieswere included in themeta-analysis. The rate of complete response was significantly lower in MMC group compared with TURBT (relative risk [RR]: 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.67, P< .001). The rates of local adverse events were lower inMMC, with a statistical significance for dysuria (RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.36-0.84, P ¼ .006), urinary frequency (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.43- 0.84, P¼ .003), cystitis (RR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.06-0.81, P¼ .02), and incontinence (RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.24-0.96, P¼ .04). In terms of complete response, TURBT is superior to chemoresection withMMC. Currently, chemoresection withMMC should be restricted to patients unfit for surgery and in clinical trials. Future randomized controlled trials are recommended to confirm or refute the use ofMMC in treating recurrent NMIBC.
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.