Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34465950›Full record

ReviewIndian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India

Apolipoprotein A1 as a novel urinary biomarker for diagnosis of bladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Khaled Tarek Dardeer, Khaled Ashraf Mohammed, Tarek Dardeer Hussein, Mohammed Said Elsheemy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
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

4 authors.

Khaled Tarek DardeerMedical Student, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Khaled Ashraf MohammedMedical Student, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Tarek Dardeer HusseinDepartment of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Mohammed Said ElsheemyDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe emergence of urinary biomarkers for bladder cancer diagnosis could provide a reliable and less invasive diagnostic method. It could be also used as an adjuvant to the current gold standards of cytology and cystoscopy to improve diagnostic accuracy and decrease the percentage of false positives.

methodsWe searched PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science up to March 18, 2020. We selected four studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of urinary apolipoprotein A1 (ApoA-1) in detecting bladder cancer and met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted the data and performed quality assessment of the studies.

resultsFour studies with 771 participants were selected; 417 were bladder cancer patients and 354 were controls. Bladder cancer was either transitional cell carcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma, the stages varied between Ta to T3, and the grades varied between G1 and G3. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 90.7%, 90%, 9.478, 0.1, and 99.424, respectively. Summary receiver operating characteristic curve showed an area under the curve of 0.9544 and Q* index of 0.8965.

conclusionsApoA-1 showed high sensitivity and specificity, so it could be a useful biomarker in diagnosis of bladder cancer.

Identifiers

PMID34465950
PMCPMC8388338

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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 Socratic graph.