Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37032753›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2023

The utility of clinical registries for guiding clinical practice in upper tract urothelial cancer: a narrative review.

Joshua Kealey, Ruth Snider, Dickon Hayne, Ian D Davis, Shomik Sengupta

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07077447 (DaBlaCa 23 - The European Collaborative Study on Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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.

NCT07077447 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

DaBlaCa 23 - The European Collaborative Study on Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma

TypeobservationalSponsorZealand University HospitalRan2025 to 2040Enrolled2,500ConditionsUpper Urinary Tract Urothelial CarcinomaArmsKidney sparing surgery for high-risk upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Joshua KealeyEastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Ruth SniderEastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Dickon HayneUWA Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Ian D DavisEastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Shomik SenguptaEastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC) lacks high-quality evidence to appraise current patterns of presentation, diagnosis, treatment and outcomes as a result of disease rarity and patient heterogeneity. Registries may overcome many of the challenges making clinical trials challenging in UTUC and provide answers to many of the clinical questions that afflict UTUC management. In this narrative review we aim to summarise the design of registries that have contributed to the UTUC literature, discuss their strengths and limitations and the future directions of registries in UTUC. Methods: Two independent reviewers conducted a search of the OVID MEDLINE database from July 2002-July 2022. Included articles were required to be published in peer reviewed journals and use registry-based methodology to report on UTUC. Search was limited by MeSH and key words and was limited to the English language. Key Content and Findings: One hundred and forty-four articles were identified and included as reporting on UTUC from a registry-based methodology. Articles utilising registry-based data have substantially increased over the study period with the majority of articles arising from large generalised cancer databases in North America. There has been an increase in UTUC-specific registries in the previous five years that have offered the most granular, complete analysis and these will continue to report in the coming years. The majority of published data assessed epidemiological factors and compared outcomes of treatment modalities with a small proportion of articles focusing on prognostic nomograms and quality of life. Larger cancer registries that contribute the majority of the published analysis are likely subject to significant selection bias when comparing cohorts for treatment analysis and the need for prospective UTUC specific registries is apparent. Future directions include the potential for registry-based randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical quality registries (CQR) that have the ability to change practice and improve care. Conclusions: The utilisation of registry-based methodology for analysis in UTUC has increased substantially over the last 20 years. In addition to the utilisation of large cancer registries, the creation of UTUC specific registries is likely to contribute the most granular, translatable data in diagnosis and management.

Indexed as

Registrytransitional cell carcinomaupper tract urothelial carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID37032753
PMCPMC10080345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.