Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38994538›Full record

SynthesisBladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2021

A Systematic Review of Outcome Reporting, Definition and Measurement Heterogeneity in Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Effectiveness Trials of Adjuvant, Prophylactic Treatment After Transurethral Resection.

Erik Veskimae, Selvarani Subbarayan, Riccardo Campi, Domitille Carron, Muhammad Imran Omar, Cathy Yuan, Konstantinos Dimitropoulos, Mieke Van Hemelrijck, Richard T Bryan, James N'Dow and 4 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

14 authors.

Erik VeskimaeDepartment of Urology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.
Selvarani SubbarayanAcademic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Riccardo CampiUnit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Domitille CarronInspiring-health GmbH, Munich, Germany.
Muhammad Imran OmarAcademic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Cathy YuanDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Konstantinos DimitropoulosAcademic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Mieke Van HemelrijckKing's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Translational and Oncology Research (TOUR), London, UK.
Richard T BryanInstitute of Cancer & Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
James N'DowAcademic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Marek BabjukDepartment of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
J Alfred WitjesDepartment of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Richard SylvesterEAU NMIBC Guidelines Panel, Brussels, Belgium.
Steven MacLennanAcademic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHeterogenous outcome reporting in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) effectiveness trials of adjuvant treatment after transurethral resection (TURBT) has been noted in systematic reviews (SRs). This hinders comparing results across trials, combining them in meta-analyses, and evidence-based decision-making for patients and clinicians.

objectiveWe aimed to systematically review the extent of reporting and definition heterogeneity.

methodsWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from SRs comparing adjuvant treatments after TURBT or TURBT alone in patients with NMIBC (with or without carcinoma

resultsWe screened 807 abstracts; from 15 SRs, 57 RCTs were included. Verbatim outcome names were coded to standard outcome names and organised using the Williamson and Clarke taxonomy. Recurrence (98%), progression (74%), treatment response (in CIS studies) (40%), and adverse events (77%) were frequently reported across studies. However, overall (33%) and cancer-specific (33%) survival, treatment completion (17%) and treatment change (37%) were less often reported. Quality of Life (3%) and economic outcomes (2%) were rarely reported. Heterogeneity was evident throughout, particularly in the definitions of progression and recurrence, and how CIS patients were handled in the analysis of studies with predominantly papillary patients, highlighting further issues with the definition of recurrence and progression vs treatment response for CIS patients. Data reporting was also inconsistent, with some trials reporting event rates at various time-points and others reporting time-to-event with or without Hazard Ratios. Adverse events were inconsistently reported. QoL data was absent in most trials.

conclusionsHeterogenous outcome reporting is evident in NMIBC effectiveness trials. This has profound implications for meta-analyses, SRs and evidence-based treatment decisions. A core outcome set is required to reduce heterogeneity. PATIENT SUMMARY: This systematic review found inconsistencies in outcome definitions and reporting, pointing out the urgent need for a core outcome set to help improve evidence-based treatment decisions.

Indexed as

core outcome setsnon-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC)Outcome reporting heterogeneitysystematic reviewTURBT

Identifiers

PMID38994538
PMCPMC11181687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.