ArticleBJUI compass2023
Perception of urinary biomarker tests among patients referred with suspected urological malignancy.
Article in BJUI compass, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Large multicenter validation of urine RNA profile for urothelial carcinoma detection and surveillance.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2026Trial
- Urine-Based Biomarker Test UromonitorCancers · 2024Review
- Perception of urinary biomarker tests among patients referred with suspected urological malignancy.BJUI compass · 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
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine the acceptability of a non-invasive urinary biomarker test in place of conventional flexible cystoscopy for the diagnosis of bladder cancer in patients referred to a Rapid Access Haematuria Clinic (RAHC) with suspected urological malignancy. Patients and methods: Patients attending a RAHC were recruited to a prospective observational study evaluating a novel urinary biomarker (URO17™) for the detection of bladder cancer and invited to complete a two-part structured questionnaire. Questions related to demographics, attitudes towards conventional cystoscopy and the minimal acceptable sensitivity (MAS) at which a urinary biomarker would be considered an alternative to flexible cystoscopy both before and after undergoing the procedure. Results: A total of 250 patients completed the survey; the majority of whom were referred with visible haematuria (75.2%). One hundred seventy-one (68.4%) would be willing to accept a urinary biomarker in place of cystoscopy, with 59 (23.6%) expressing preference for the biomarker with a MAS as low as 85%. Conversely, 74 patients (29.6%) would not be willing to accept a urinary biomarker, regardless of its sensitivity. A significant number of patients reported a change in MAS after undergoing cystoscopy, with 80 (32.0%) and 16 (6.4%) increasing and decreasing the required value respectively ( Conclusions: Although many patients attending a RAHC would be willing to accept a urinary biomarker test in place of conventional flexible cystoscopy for the detection of bladder cancer, effective patient, public and clinician engagement will be necessary at all stages of implementation if it is to become an established component of the diagnostic pathway.
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.