ReviewBJUI compass2025
Urinary biomarkers in multicentric studies: Shaping the future of bladder cancer diagnosis and follow-up.
Review in BJUI compass, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Urinary Biomarkers in Urological Oncology: From Biological Origin to Clinical Decision-Making-A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Urinary biomarkers in multicentric studies: Shaping the future of bladder cancer diagnosis and follow-up.BJUI compass · 2025Review
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
Abstract
Background and Objective: Bladder cancer (BC), a prevalent malignancy, poses significant diagnostic and surveillance challenges due to its high recurrence rates and reliance on cystoscopy, an invasive procedure for diagnosis and monitoring. While urine-based genomic and proteomic biomarkers offer promising non-invasive alternatives, their clinical implementation remains limited. This review synthesizes evidence from multicentric studies on urinary biomarkers for BC and evaluates their potential in reducing unnecessary invasive cystoscopies. Methods: A comprehensive review of literature was conducted searching for multicentric studies on urine-based genomic and proteomic biomarkers for BC detection and/or surveillance. MEDLINE/Pubmed, Embase and Scopus databases and BJUI, UroToday and European Urology Oncology registries were searched using National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. Emphasis was placed on the comparative performance of diagnostic platforms across different research and clinical settings. Key Findings and Limitations: The literature search yielded 51 reports that were included for analysis. Multicentre studies enhance the generalizability of findings by addressing inter-laboratory variability and population diversity. This review underscores the importance of standardization, comparative performance analyses that these studies provide, and the potential for cost-effective non-invasive diagnostic tools. However, despite FDA approvals, no biomarker has replaced cystoscopy in clinical settings due to an inconsistent and insufficient combination of sensitivity, specificity and cost-effectiveness parameters. The performance of AssureMDX and Enhanced CxBladder tests showed the most promise, but further large-scale, standardized validation is still necessary. Conclusions and Clinical Implications: Urine-based biomarkers have the potential to improve early BC detection and surveillance while reducing reliance on invasive procedures and costs related to the disease. Future efforts should prioritize cost-effective, large-scale multicentric studies to facilitate the adoption of these biomarkers into routine practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.