Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35362747›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2023

Screening programs for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review by the EAU young academic urologists renal cancer working group.

Pietro Diana, Tobias Klatte, Daniele Amparore, Riccardo Bertolo, Umberto Carbonara, Selcuk Erdem, Alexandre Ingels, Onder Kara, Laura Marandino, Michele Marchioni and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Expression of hypoxia-inducible factors in clear-cell renal cell carcinoma tumors of adults with and without obstructive sleep apnea.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Validation ofFrontiers in medicine · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

17 authors at 7 institutions in 7 countries.

Pietro DianaDepartment of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Cartagena 340-350, 08025, Barcelona, Spain. pietros.diana@gmail.com.
Tobias KlatteDepartment of Urology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Daniele AmparoreDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Riccardo BertoloEuropean Association of Urology (EAU) Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Umberto CarbonaraEuropean Association of Urology (EAU) Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Selcuk ErdemEuropean Association of Urology (EAU) Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Alexandre IngelsEuropean Association of Urology (EAU) Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Onder KaraEuropean Association of Urology (EAU) Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Laura MarandinoEuropean Association of Urology (EAU) Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Michele MarchioniEuropean Association of Urology (EAU) Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Stijn MuselaersEuropean Association of Urology (EAU) Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Nicola PavanEuropean Association of Urology (EAU) Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Angela PecoraroDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Alessio PecoraroUnit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Eduard RousselEuropean Association of Urology (EAU) Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Riccardo CampiEuropean Association of Urology (EAU) Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Working Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands. riccardo.campi@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5237-0888
European Association of Urology (EAU) Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer group
European Association of Urology · NLCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEHumanitas University · ITRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity of Trieste · ITVita-Salute San Raffaele University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo systematically review studies focused on screening programs for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and provide an exhaustive overview on their clinical impact, potential benefits, and harms.

methodsA systematic review of the recent English-language literature was conducted according to the European Association of Urology guidelines and the PRISMA statement recommendations (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021283136) using the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Risk-of-bias assessment was performed according to the QUality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool.

resultsOverall, nine studies and one clinical trials were included. Eight studies reported results from RCC screening programs involving a total of 159 136 patients and four studies reported screening cost-analysis. The prevalence of RCC ranged between 0.02 and 0.22% and it was associated with the socio-demographic characteristics of the subjects; selection of the target population decreased, overall, the screening cost per diagnosis.

conclusionsDespite an increasing interest in RCC screening programs from patients and clinicians there is a relative lack of studies reporting the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and the optimal modality for RCC screening. Targeting high-risk individuals and/or combining detection of RCC with other health checks represent pragmatic options to improve the cost-effectiveness and reduce the potential harms of RCC screening.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellKidney NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHumansPrognosisUrologistsBiomarkersCancerImagingKidneyRenal cancerScreening

Identifiers

PMID35362747
PMCPMC10160199
OpenAlexW4220882407

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.