Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40129475›Full record

ArticleResearch and reports in urology2025

Validation of Cxbladder

Daniel Magee, Ninan Tharakan, Yuigi Yuiminaga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research and reports in urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Daniel MageeDepartment of Urology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0420-9103
Ninan TharakanDepartment of Urology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia.
Yuigi YuiminagaDepartment of Urology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Bladder cancer is the 10 Materials and methods: A single centre prospective study where the patients have been referred for investigation of UC or those on routine surveillance of known UC. All patients were counselled with consent obtained prior to midstream urine collection pre-cystoscopy in line with local protocol for urine-analysis to screen for infection with the residual specimen collected for the CxbT or CxbM test. De-identified patient demographic data along with smoking status, risk of environmental exposures, family history, type of hematuria or last date of last recurrence were collected, and the planned cystoscopy would then proceed. The data pertaining to exposure to smoking and type of haematuria are the symptoms and risk factors that are taken into account with CxbT or CxbM to calculate a score, which can then be correlated with the outcome at the end with cystoscopic and imaging investigations. Results: A combined 236 patients were recruited (CxbT = 134, CxbM = 102) with results showing excellent negative predictive value of 96.43% and 95.16%, respectively. A key result showed that CxbT in combination with upper tract imaging done as routine was able to rule out UC completely in low-risk patients. Conclusion: We have validated the use of Cxbladder as an adjunct in the investigation and surveillance of UC. It is a non-invasive, accurate and reproducible test that can aid in ruling out UC, specifically for low-risk patients.

Indexed as

bladder cancerCxbladderurine biomarkersurothelial carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID40129475
PMCPMC11930626

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.