Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35783990›Full record

ReviewEuropean urology open science2022

Prognostic Value of Tumor Size in Patients with Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Runzhuo Ma, Zenan Liu, Yinchu Cheng, Pengxiang Zhou, Yuting Pan, Hai Bi, Liyuan Tao, Bin Yang, Haizhui Xia, Xuehua Zhu and 6 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European urology open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

16 authors.

Runzhuo MaDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Zenan LiuDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yinchu ChengDepartment of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Pengxiang ZhouDepartment of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yuting PanDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Hai BiDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Liyuan TaoDepartment of Biostatistics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Bin YangDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Haizhui XiaDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xuehua ZhuDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Jide HeDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Wei HeDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Guoliang WangDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yi HuangDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Lulin MaDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Jian LuDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Context: The role of tumor size in predicting prognosis in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) patients remains poorly defined. Objective: To assess the prognostic value of tumor size in patients with UTUC through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Evidence acquisition: A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed and Embase databases were performed to identify all relevant articles published up to December 2021 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Available hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were analyzed to evaluate the association between tumor size and survival outcomes. Evidence synthesis: A total of 35 articles representing 32 292 patients met the eligibility criteria and were finally included for the meta-analysis. Tumor size was significantly associated with poor outcomes in terms of overall survival (HR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.28-1.58), cancer-specific survival (HR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.47-1.88), recurrence-free survival (HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.13-1.38), and intravesical recurrence (HR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.04-1.20). There was between-study heterogeneity in the effect of tumor size on all these meta-analyses, with Conclusions: This study shows that larger tumor size is associated with an increased risk of overall and cancer-specific mortality, and disease recurrence in UTUC. Integration of tumor size with other prognostic indicators may help in risk stratification and individualized treatment of UTUC. Patient summary: Through a systematic review and meta-analysis, this study found that larger tumor size is associated with an increased risk of overall and cancer-specific mortality, and disease recurrence in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

Indexed as

Meta-analysisPrognosisTumor sizeUpper tract urothelial carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID35783990
PMCPMC9244730

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.