ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Predictive value of Bladder EpiCheck
Article in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAs Bladder EpiCheck
methodsA total of 50 patients who were diagnosed with NMIBC and indicated for a second TUR were included in the study prospectively. The urine sample taken one day before the second TUR operation was evaluated with BE and the results were compared with second TUR pathologies.
resultsThe mean age was 65.3 and 45 of the patients were male. Specificity and negative predictive value of BE in primary tumor stage Ta were 100% and 87.5% while in primary tumor stage T1 were 71.4% and 68.2%, respectively. The specificity and negative predictive value of BE were 77.8% and 75%, respectively, in patients with high grade primary tumor. When all NMIBC were evaluated, the specificity and negative predictive value of BE were found to be 78.6% and 73.3% for second TUR, respectively. As an independent predictor of residual tumor in this group, positivity rates of BE were higher in T1 (p < 0.037) and high grade (p < 0.002) tumors.
conclusionsBE may be useful in detecting residual tumor before second TUR and benefit in clinical decision making with high specificity and negative predictive value. These results encourage the use of BE to reduce number of unnecessary second TUR procedures. It may improve cost effectivity and quality of life as high numbered studies are needed to support these views and to incorporate BE into clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39869192What 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.