ArticleCentral European journal of urology2024
Exploring the enigma of not macroscopically detectable urothelial carcinoma: A scoping review on the definition, prevalence, diagnosis, and management of positive urinary cytology with absent macroscopic disease.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: There is a significant gap in the literature for cases of positive urinary cytology in the absence of macroscopically detectable disease for urothelial carcinoma. This condition, which we might define as not macroscopically detectable urothelial carcinoma (NMDUC), may be relatively rare but presents significant challenges in management and patient information. This review aims to search the literature for information useful for managing this condition. Material and methods: We structured the review as a scoping review given the desire to have a qualitative definition of NMDUC, without restrictions on study design or demographic characteristics. The review was structured around 5 domains: definition, diagnostic criteria, population, management, and time of disease progression. The review was conducted following the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Results: We found a total of 411 studies and selected 16 for inclusion in the review. Notably, no studies adequately addressed the definition of NMDUC directly. Our findings highlight the diagnostic challenges posed by NMDUC, especially the reliability of positive urinary cytology. The literature indicates a significant gap in the standardisation of diagnostic criteria and management for NMDUC. Conclusions: NMDUC represents a critical area of urological research requiring further investigation and clearer diagnostic guidelines. We propose the initiation of an international registry to better understand the prevalence, impact, and progression of NMDUC, aiming to standardise the definition and enhance management strategies. This work lays the groundwork for future research that could lead to significant improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of this challenging condition.
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.