Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40967188›Full record

ReviewCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2025

Impact of bladder cuff management on oncologic outcomes following radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma A systematic review and meta-analysis.

John Kim, Abdullah Alrumaih, Braden Millan, Michael Uy, Deron Britt, Jennifer Tang, Rahul Bansal

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 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

7 authors.

John KimDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Abdullah AlrumaihDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Braden MillanDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Michael UyDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Deron BrittDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Jennifer TangDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Rahul BansalDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionBladder cuff excision (BCE) is an integral component of radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). While many approaches have been described, the optimal technique for BCE to provide maximal oncologic control remains unanswered. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare oncologic outcomes of different BCE techniques.

methodsThe Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies comparing oncologic outcomes of RNU for UTUC based on different BCE approaches. Techniques for BCE were categorized as intravesical, extravesical, or endoscopic. Our primary outcomes were intravesical recurrence rate (IVR) and intravesical recurrence-free survival (IVRFS). Secondary outcomes included recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Meta-analysis was performed to compare the recurrence rates and survival outcomes associated with different BCE techniques.

resultsForty studies assessing a total of 17 168 patients were identified for inclusion. Open intravesical BCE was associated with superior univariate IVRFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.42, p=0.04, I

conclusionsOpen intravesical BCE is associated with superior oncologic outcomes when compared to non-intravesical techniques. This difference is primarily driven by the open intravesical approach's superiority to the open extravesical approach. Endoscopic BCE showed equivalent outcomes when compared to non-endoscopic approaches. Prospective randomized trials can shed further light on the optimal approach to BCE.

Identifiers

PMID40967188
PMCPMC12604920

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.