The Diagnostic Accuracy of Cystoscopy for Detecting Bladder Cancer in Adults Presenting with Haematuria: A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Guidelines Office
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Haematuria can be macroscopic (visible haematuria [VH]) or microscopic (nonvisible haematuria [NVH]), and may be caused by a number of underlying aetiologies. Currently, in case of haematuria, cystoscopy is the standard diagnostic tool to screen the entire bladder for malignancy. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review is to determine the diagnostic test accuracy of cystoscopy (compared with other tests, eg, computed tomography, urine biomarkers, and urine cytology) for detecting bladder cancer in adults. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) extension for diagnostic test accuracy studies' checklist. The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane CDSR databases (via Ovid) were searched up to July 13, 2022. The population comprises patients presenting with either VH or NVH, without previous urological cancers. Two reviewers independently screened all articles, searched reference lists of retrieved articles, and performed data extraction. The risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, nine studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Seven out of nine included trials covered the use of cystoscopy in comparison with radiological imaging. Overall, sensitivity of cystoscopy ranged from 87% to 100%, specificity from 64% to 100%, positive predictive value from 79% to 98%, and negative predictive values between 98% and 100%. Two trials compared enhanced or air cystoscopy versus conventional cystoscopy. Overall sensitivity of conventional white light cystoscopy ranged from 47% to 100% and specificity from 93.4% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The true accuracy of cystoscopy for the detection of bladder cancer within the context of haematuria has not been studied extensively, resulting in inconsistent data regarding its performance for patients with haematuria. In comparison with imaging modalities, a few trials have prospectively assessed the diagnostic performance of cystoscopy, confirming very high accuracy for cystoscopy, exceeding the diagnostic value of any other imaging test. PATIENT SUMMARY: Evidence of tests for detecting bladder cancer in adults presenting with haematuria (blood in urine) was reviewed. The most common test used was cystoscopy, which remains the current standard for diagnosing bladder cancer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".