ReviewBJUI compass2024
Malignant upper urinary tract obstruction in cancer patients: A systematic review.
Review in BJUI compass, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and Radiological Findings in Endorectal Migration of a Metallic Ureteral Stent.Clinics and practice · 2026Article
- Characteristics and outcomes of men presenting with complications of metastatic prostate cancer.BJU international · 2026Article
- Article
- Antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous nephrostomy placements and replacements for malignant urinary tract obstruction. Retrospective cohort study with systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in radiology · 2026Review
- Erratum.BJUI compass · 2024Article
- Effect of emergent nephrostomy on long-term total and split renal function in patients with upper urinary tract obstruction due to pelvic malignant tumors.Pediatric surgery international · 2024Article
- Malignant upper urinary tract obstruction in cancer patients: A systematic review.BJUI compass · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2024
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically summarise the current clinical evidence for de novo malignant upper urinary tract obstruction treatment with a focus on standards of reporting, patient outcomes and future research needs. Methods: This review protocol was published via PROSPERO (CRD42022341588). OVID MEDLINE (R), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL were searched up to June 2022 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Prospective and retrospective studies were included. Results: Of 941 articles identified, 82 with 8796 patients were eligible for inclusion.Most studies in the published literature are retrospective and investigate heterogenous malignancies. Percutaneous nephrostomy and ureteric stenting are the most studied interventions. Few studies describe the outcomes from no intervention or investigate patient perspectives. Overall reported median survival after intervention was around 11.7 months. A lack of standardised reporting of outcomes was evident. Conclusions: Malignant upper urinary tract obstruction is an important clinical condition affecting patients globally. Overall survival after intervention appears poor however the current evidence base has significant limitations due to studies of low methodological quality and the lack of a standardised framework for reporting outcomes.We have provided a pragmatic framework for future studies based on the review to ensure a uniform methodology is utilised moving forward.
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.