Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37145560›Full record

ArticleUrology practice2022

Characteristics of Online Crowdfunding Campaigns for Urological Cancers in the United States.

Jordan T Holler, Nizar Hakam, Behnam Nabavizadeh, Michael J Sadighian, William P Shibley, Kevin D Li, Lucas Weiser, Natalie Rios, Anthony Enriquez, Michael S Leapman and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Urology practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. GoFundMe®: Crowdfunding Among Young Adult Patients With Cancer.Clinical journal of oncology nursing · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jordan T HollerDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.ORCID 0000-0003-3719-127X
Nizar HakamDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Behnam NabavizadehDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Michael J SadighianDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
William P ShibleyDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Kevin D LiDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Lucas WeiserDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Natalie RiosDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Anthony EnriquezDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Michael S LeapmanDepartment of Urology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Gregory M AmendDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Benjamin N BreyerDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
University of California, San Francisco · USHarvard University · USYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWe examined the characteristics and financial outcomes of online crowdfunding campaigns for patients with major urological cancers in the U.S.

methodsThis cross-sectional study analyzed publicly available data from GoFundMe, the largest online medical crowdfunding service, via automated web scraping. Online campaigns from 2010 to 2018 with the following primary cancer types were included: kidney, prostate, bladder and testicular. Financial outcomes were compared using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Multivariable analyses were utilized to identify predictors of campaign financial outcomes.

resultsKidney cancers were the most frequent online campaign type (478), followed by prostate (379), bladder (202) and testicular (175) malignancies. Urological cancer campaign recipients frequently requested funding for medical expenses (71%) during active treatment (57%). After adjustment, testicular cancer and children's cancer campaigns generated more donations than other urological and adult cancer campaigns (p <0.05). Family and friend-authored campaigns generated more donations and average donation amounts than self-authored campaigns (p <0.05). Campaign narratives focused on disheartening circumstances received fewer donations than narratives focused on the recipient's high moral character or contributions to society (p <0.05), and unclear narratives received the smallest donation amounts (p <0.05).

conclusionsUrological cancer crowdfunding in the U.S. is primarily used to finance uncovered costs associated with medical care during active treatment. Crowdfunding financial outcomes are likely related to the campaign recipient's age, malignancy type, social network and primary appeal of the narrative. Urologists should be aware of trends in medical crowdfunding in order to better understand the financial burden this patient population faces.

Indexed as

crowdsourcingfund raisinghealthcare disparitieshealthcare financingurologic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID37145560
PMCPMC12721642
OpenAlexW3206774174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.