Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35326672›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

Non-Invasive Biomarkers in the Diagnosis of Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma-A Systematic Review.

Łukasz Białek, Konrad Bilski, Jakub Dobruch, Wojciech Krajewski, Tomasz Szydełko, Piotr Kryst, Sławomir Poletajew

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Łukasz BiałekDepartment of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-813 Warsaw, Poland.
Konrad BilskiDepartment of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-813 Warsaw, Poland.
Jakub DobruchDepartment of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-813 Warsaw, Poland.
Wojciech KrajewskiDepartment of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-556 Wrocław, Poland.
Tomasz SzydełkoDepartment of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-556 Wrocław, Poland.
Piotr KrystSecond Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-813 Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-2551-0296
Sławomir PoletajewSecond Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-813 Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-7664-9816
Postgraduate School of Molecular Medicine · PLWroclaw Medical University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Beyond laboratory, imaging and endoscopic procedures, new diagnostic tools are increasingly being sought for the diagnosis of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), especially those that are non-invasive. In this systematic review, we aimed to determine the effectiveness of non-invasive tests in the diagnosis of UTUC. PubMed and Embase electronic databases were searched to identify studies assessing effectiveness of non-invasive tests in the primary diagnosis of UTUC. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020216480). Among 10,084 screened publications, 25 were eligible and included in the analysis. Most of them were conducted on small samples of patients and the control groups were heterogenous. The test used in the largest number of studies was voided urinary cytology, which has poor sensitivity (11-71.1%) with favorable specificity (54-100%). Fluorescence in situ hybridization in diagnostic cytology showed higher sensitivity (35-85.7%) with equally good specificity (80-100%). There were also studies on the use of tests known to diagnose bladder cancer such as NMP22, uCYT or BTA test. Other urine or blood tests have been the subject of only isolated studies, with varying results. To conclude, currently there is a lack of high-quality data that could confirm good effectiveness of non-invasive tests used in the diagnosis of UTUC.

Indexed as

biomarkersupper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID35326672
PMCPMC8945959
OpenAlexW4221031759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.