ReviewUrologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
[Association of glitazones and bladder cancer: a rapid review].
Review in Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- [Gender-specific differences in outcome and survival in early cystectomy : Systematic review].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince the authorization of glitazones as oral antidiabetics, there has been a controversial debate as to whether they increase the risk of bladder cancer or accelerate its progression. Recent data have shown that glitazones can upregulate the expression of Nectin4.
objectivesThese results make a renewed detailed examination of the topic unavoidable. Consequently, we conducted a rapid evidence analysis. The primarily aim was to identify systematic reviews investigating this relationship. Second, translational studies that describe the molecular biological background were identified. MATERIALS AND
methodsA rapid evidence analysis was conducted with a literature search in MEDLINE via PubMed for the period July 2000 (first approval of glitazones in the European Union) to the date of the last search (15 July 2024).
resultsThe primary literature search yielded 860 hits and ultimately 14 studies were included. Of these, 6 were systematic reviews (5 including meta-analyses) and 8 were translational studies. In the reviews, the data situation regarding the association of glitazones with bladder cancer remains ambiguous, particularly due to the heterogeneity of the underlying studies and numerous confounding factors such as age or smoking history. Experimental evidence of a causal relationship between glitazones and bladder cancer could not be demonstrated. Two included studies even see a possible therapeutic benefit of the preparations in these patients.
conclusionIt remains unclear whether glitazones play a relevant role in the development of bladder cancer. The possible therapeutic benefit should be urgently investigated further.
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.