ArticleEuropean urology open science2026
Evaluating
Article in European urology open science, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Preoperative lymph node staging in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) using Objective: This study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of PET-CT and conventional computed tomography (CT) for detecting regional lymph node metastases in patients with UTUC, using histopathology as the reference standard. Design setting and participants: A total of 75 consecutive patients with UTUC, who underwent radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) with regional lymphadenectomy (rLAE) between 2014 and 2024, were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent preoperative PET-CT. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Accuracy for PET-CT and CT was compared with histopathology in fractionated lymphadenectomy specimens in the total cohort and in the subgroup that did not receive preoperative chemotherapy (PC). Results and limitations: Of the 75 patients, 48 were male (64%), 23 (31%) received PC, and 18 (24%) had histologically confirmed lymph node metastases. For all patients, results for PET-CT and their 95% confidence intervals were as follows: sensitivity 83% (59-96), specificity 70% (57-82), and positive likelihood ratio (LR+) 2.8 (1.8-4.4), compared with 39% (17-64), 83% (70-91), and 2.2 (1.0-5.0) for CT, respectively. In the subgroup of 52 patients who did not receive PC, PET-CT showed a sensitivity of 75% (43-95), specificity of 90% (76-97), and LR+ of 7.5 (2.8-20.1), while CT yielded 25% (6-57), 93% (80-98), and 3.3 (0.8-14.4), respectively. The primary limitation of the study is the limited sample size, particularly the small number of patients with confirmed nodal metastases. Conclusions: Preoperative PET-CT demonstrates promising diagnostic accuracy for regional lymph node staging in patients with UTUC.
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.