SynthesisInvestigative and clinical urology2025
Evaluating diagnostic performance of urinary biomarkers in the surveillance of non-muscle invasive bladder carcinoma: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Investigative and clinical 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.
- ZEB1-AS1 and miR-200b-3p Expression in Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Pathological Correlates.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUrinary biomarkers have been proposed to play an integral role in detecting recurrent non-muscle invasive bladder carcinoma (NMIBC). This review delineates the diagnostic accuracy of such biomarkers and management strategies in the event of discordance between biomarker findings and flexible cystoscopy, the current gold standard for NMIBC surveillance. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, literature searches were conducted across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), focusing on studies comparing urinary biomarkers to cystoscopy. The inclusion criteria were based on the PICOS (Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome Study type) model. The quality of included studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.
resultsA total of 23 studies were included, encompassing 21 types of urinary biomarkers. The analysis revealed significant variability in diagnostic performance. Sensitivity ranged from 14.8% to 94.3%, specificity from 33.3% to 99.2%, positive predictive value from 9.9% to 100%, and negative predictive value from 35.3% to 98.8%. Heterogeneity was observed across studies, indicating variability in different biomarker performance. Genetic biomarkers demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracy compared to protein-based markers. However, their clinical utility needs further validation.
conclusionsUrinary biomarkers could complement, rather than replace cystoscopy, in the surveillance of NMIBC, potentially reducing the frequency of invasive procedures. In cases of discordance, an algorithm focusing on shared decision-making and tailored surveillance strategies can be undertaken. Large-scale multicentric studies are needed to confirm their efficacy and establish standardized clinical protocols.
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.