Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42477956›Full record

GuidelineInternational journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association2026

Consensus-Based Development of a Surgical Checklist for Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor: An Initiative of the Japanese Society of Urologic Oncology.

Rikiya Taoka, Nozomi Hayakawa, Tomokazu Kimura, Eiji Kikuchi, Kosuke Iwatani, Minoru Kato, Takashi Matsumoto, Hajime Tanaka, Takeshi Sano, Takuto Hara and 10 more

Abstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

20 authors.

Rikiya TaokaDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kita-gun, Japan.
Nozomi HayakawaDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, St. Marianna University, Kawasaki, Japan.
Tomokazu KimuraDepartment of Urology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.
Eiji KikuchiDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, St. Marianna University, Kawasaki, Japan.
Kosuke IwataniDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Kashiwa Hospital, Kashiwa, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5428-852X
Minoru KatoDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4171-6027
Takashi MatsumotoDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Hajime TanakaDepartment of Urology, Institute of Science Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3632-2901
Takeshi SanoDepartment of Urology and Andrology, Kansai Medical University, Hirakata, Japan.
Takuto HaraDepartment of Urology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4524-2815
Hideo FukuharaDepartment of Urology, Kochi Medical School, Nankoku, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9079-0995
Makito MiyakeDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9503-7356
Takahiro OsawaDepartment of Urology and Molecular Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine and Dental Sciences, Niigata University, Niigata, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4444-7958
Shingo HatakeyamaDepartment of Urology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan.
Takashi KobayashiDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1069-2816
Junichi InokuchiDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, University of the Ryukyus, Ginowan, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6791-905X
Shuichi TataranoDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4224-5084
Hiroshi KitamuraDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences for Research, University of Toyama, Toyama, Japan.
Mikio SugimotoDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kita-gun, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9266-782X
Norio NonomuraDepartment of Urology, The University of Osaka Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Japan.

Funding

Astellas Pharma Inc
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to develop a nationwide, consensus-based surgical checklist to standardize transurethral resection of bladder tumor procedures and documentation.

methodsIn 2025, the Japanese Society of Urologic Oncology convened a working group of 20 bladder cancer specialist urologists to develop a national surgical checklist for transurethral resection of bladder tumors. A 12-member steering committee reviewed available evidence and proposed 30 candidate items. Using a modified Delphi approach, all members rated each item online, with consensus predefined as ≥ 75% agreement. Iterative revisions incorporating public comments and external expert input produced the final checklist.

resultsThe final checklist comprised 22 items across four sections: (i) preoperative patient and tumor information (recurrence status; upper tract urothelial carcinoma; urine cytology; clinical Tumor-Node-Metastasis staging; performance status; factors affecting surgery/anesthesia); (ii) surgical and anesthetic planning (surgical intent; resection technique; adjunctive imaging modality; additional biopsies; anesthesia method; obturator reflex prophylaxis); (iii) intraoperative tumor and resection information (tumor number; index tumor morphology; index tumor size; findings suggestive of carcinoma in situ; extent of tumor resection; detrusor muscle visible; muscle invasion suspected); and (iv) complications and adjuvant therapy (urethral stricture; intraoperative complications; immediate single instillation). An additional section provides two bladder diagrams: a male/general-use version with lower urinary tract annotations and a female-specific version, both designed for mapping tumor location, characteristics, and operative findings.

conclusionsThis checklist provides a practical framework to standardize transurethral resection of bladder tumor practice and documentation and support safe, high-quality care, warranting prospective evaluation of feasibility, adherence, and quality indicators/outcomes.

Indexed as

ChecklistTransurethral Resection of BladderUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsConsensusDelphi TechniqueHumansJapanMedical OncologyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingSocieties, MedicalUrinary BladderUrologychecklistsnon‐muscle‐invasive bladder neoplasmspatient safetyquality improvementtransurethral resection of bladder

Identifiers

PMID42477956
PMCPMC13385473

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.