ArticleEuropean urology open science2023
Implementing a Checklist for Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor to Standardize Outcome Reporting: When High-quality Resection Could Influence Oncological Outcomes.
Article in European urology open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Therapeutic and prognostic value of repeat transurethral resection for high-grade Ta bladder cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.American journal of cancer research · 2026Article
- Recurrence and prevention strategies for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A comprehensive review.Asian journal of urology · 2026Review
- Do we need a re-TUR after en bloc resection of T1 stage bladder cancer?World journal of urology · 2024Article
- A 10-year renaissance of en bloc resection of bladder tumors (ERBT): Are we approaching the peak or is it back to the trough?World journal of urology · 2023Review
- Checklist for Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor (TURBT): A Step Forward in the Standardization for TURBT Reporting.European urology open science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing en bloc resection of bladder tumor (ERBT) to conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumor (cTURBT) have reported controversial results. In particular, the 1-yr recurrence rate ranged from 5% to 40% for ERBT and from 11% to 31% for cTURBT. We provide an updated analysis of an RCT comparing the 1-yr recurrence rate for ERBT versus cTURBT for a cohort of 219 patients comprising 123 (56.2%) in the ERBT group and 96 (43.8%) in the cTURBT group. At 1 yr, 11 patients in the ERBT group and 12 in the cTURBT group experienced recurrence. The heterogeneity in recurrence observed in other RCTs could be explained by the scarce and heterogeneous adoption of tools and techniques that have been proved to lower the recurrence rate, supporting the need for implementation of a TURBT checklist. This prompted us to create a checklist of items for RCTs to standardize how TURBT is performed in trials, facilitate comparison between studies, assess the applicability of results in real-life practice, and provide a push towards high-quality resections to improve oncological outcomes. The checklist could have utility as a user-friendly guide for reporting TURBT procedures to improve our understanding of trials involving this procedure. Patient summary: We compared the recurrence rate at 1 year for bladder cancer treated with two different approaches to remove bladder tumors in our center. The rates were comparable for the two groups. Other studies have found widely differing recurrence rates, so we propose use of a checklist to standardize these procedures and provide more consistent outcomes for patients.
Indexed as
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.