ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Pathological assessment of morcellated tissue after ERBT: insights from a two-round Delphi survey.
Article in World journal of urology, 2026. 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the pathological adequacy of morcellated ERBT specimens using a two-round Delphi methodology and to establish expert consensus among leading pathologists worldwide.
methodsCore pathological parameters relevant for ERBT specimens were predefined, and representative high-quality digital slides of morcellated ERBT specimens were selected. These images were reviewed by an international panel of expert uropathologists with extensive experience in bladder cancer. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted, in which panelists rated the importance of predefined pathological parameters on a 5-point Likert scale. The items on which a consensus was not reached during the first round, were reviewed and rephrased for the second round involving the same responders. Consensus was defined as > 75% agreement among participants.
results10 responders took part in the survey. During the initial Delphi round, agreement was achieved on six points, covering aspects such as tumor grading and staging (including lympho-vascular invasion, perineural invasion, detrusor muscle presence, grading adequacy, and histological classification). A broader statement also reached consensus, indicating that morcellation following ERBT provides specimen of appropriate quality. After revising the statements, the second round resulted in consensus on three more items: morcellated specimens allow for precise staging, evaluation of detrusor muscle invasion, and identification of carcinoma in situ.
conclusionTissue acquired after ERBT through morcellation permits dependable pathological evaluation, encompassing grading, staging, and identification of critical prognostic indicators such as carcinoma in situ, detrusor muscle, lymph vascular and perineural invasion. Morcellation is not perceived to compromise pathological evaluation based on expert consensus.
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.