ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2024
Role of repeat transurethral resection in no-muscle-invasive bladder tumour: an umbrella review.
Article in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpretable machine learning using CT radiomics predicts pathological upgrading after secondary resection in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Chemotherapy-enhanced endoscopic submucosal En Bloc dissection vs. conventional TURBT for NMIBC: a comparative study.International urology and nephrology · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Repeat transurethral resection of bladder tumour (reTURB) is a conventional treatment for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) to enhance prognosis. However, the necessity of reTURB in NMIBC remains controversial owing to upstaging of treatments and new evidence. Objectives: We performed an umbrella review to determine the need for reTURB in patients with NMIBC. Design: We extracted data from meta-analyses that were screened out after a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Methods: Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation tools were used to assess the quality of each included meta-analysis and outcomes. Results: Our study included seven meta-analyses. Two studies assessed the efficiency of reTURB in patients who underwent en bloc resection of bladder tumours (ERBT). Patients who underwent ERBT reported low residual tumour and upstaging rates of 5.9% and 0.3%, respectively. Conversely, patients who underwent conventional transurethral resection for bladder cancer (cTURB) had high residual tumour rates. Patients who underwent cTURB and reTURB had significantly improved 1-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) compared to those who underwent initial cTURB alone. In terms of progression-free survival (PFS), a meta-analysis reported that patients who underwent cTURB and reTURB had significantly improved PFS compared with those who underwent initial cTURB alone. In the subgroup analyses of ERBT, reTURB did not affect the RFS and PFS of patients who received ERBT. Currently, only a limited number of randomised clinical trials have evaluated reTURB, and various factors have influenced its efficacy. Conclusion: There was significant variation in survival outcomes among patients undergoing reTURB. The necessity and efficacy of reTURB depend on numerous factors, such as surgical approach, equipment and medication usage. Patients eligible for ERBT may constitute a group that does not require reTURB. Further clinical trials are required to validate these findings. Registration: This umbrella review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023439078).
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.