Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36239948›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2024

Analysing cause of death during follow-up for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: is there a role for watchful waiting?

Y Zhang, M Nosseir, J Dyer

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Bibliometric analysis of research trends in the relationship between frailty and neoplasms over the past decade.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Y ZhangStockport NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
M NosseirStockport NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
J DyerStockport NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
Stockport NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNon-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) patients often require multiple invasive procedures during follow-up. Surveillance guidelines do not adjust for increasing frailty or competing comorbidity. We aim to evaluate the influence of these factors on the natural history of NMIBC and whether this may have implications for appropriate follow-up schedules.

methodsNMIBC patients who died in a 3-year period while on cystoscopic surveillance were identified. Frailty was assessed using the Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS): 1-3, no frailty; 4, vulnerable; 5-9, mild/severe frailty. Similarly, three-tier categorisations were performed for comorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index) and for anaesthetic risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists' [ASA] score).

resultsOf the 69 patients, 26 were categorised as no frailty, 20 as vulnerable and 13 as frail. There was no difference in the proportions of those with higher risk NMIBC between the categories. Increasing frailty was associated with reduced overall survival (median 59, 29 and 13 months;

conclusionsFor frail patients with low risk of progression, protocol-driven cystoscopic surveillance may not improve survival and watchful waiting may be more appropriate. Further investigation is required to determine the feasibility of this approach.

Indexed as

FrailtyNon-Muscle Invasive Bladder NeoplasmsUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsCause of DeathFollow-Up StudiesHumansWatchful WaitingBladder cancerFrailtySurvivalWatchful waiting

Identifiers

PMID36239948
PMCPMC10757883
OpenAlexW4306178346

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.