Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39582079›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Single center evaluation of sensitivity and specificity of CellDetect assay in early bladder cancer patients.

Wenbo Gao, Zhiling Lou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Wenbo GaoDepartment of Urology, Ningbo Urology and Nephrology Hospital, Ningbo, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China. gwbmdoc@foxmail.com.
Zhiling LouDepartment of Urology, Ningbo Urology and Nephrology Hospital, Ningbo, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Until recently, the main diagnostic methods for bladder cancer (BC) are still voided urine cytology and cystoscopy, and many drawbacks persist. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of the CellDetect assay in the detection of BC with comparison to standard diagnostic methods. Between August 2020 and July 2022, B-ultrasonography or computed tomography (CT) scan was performed for patients with hematuria or irritative voiding symptoms. If no bladder mass was detected, the patient was excluded. A total of 148 patients with bladder mass formed the final study cohort. The patients' urine samples were measured with CellDetect assay, followed by cystoscopy or diagnostic transurethral resection of bladder tumor. The patients were divided into two groups based on previous history of BC: group P and group R. The analysis included descriptive statistics and percentages. Finally, 115 cases had a positive CellDetect result, with 68 cases in group P and 47 in group R, respectively. And 134 cases revealed malignant tumor pathologically. The overall sensitivity and specificity for all patients were 82.1% and 64.2%, respectively. Concerning the subgroups, the respective sensitivity and specificity were: in group P- 81.0% and 50.0%; and in group R- 85.2% and 83.3%, respectively. In conclusion, CellDetect assay demonstrated significant performance for diagnosis of BC: it can identify BC patients at early stage with significant diagnostic performance and good reliability. This assay might develop novel methods and ideas for future clinical practice.

Indexed as

Sensitivity and SpecificityUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCystoscopyEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID39582079
PMCPMC11586397

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.