Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 820

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Epidemiology of Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Contemporary Update of Risk Factors in 2018

Open access
Cumberbatch, Marcus George Kwesi, Jubber, Ibrahim, Black, Peter C., Esperto, Francesco, Figueroa, Jonine D., Kamat, Ashish M., Kiemeney, Lambertus, Lotan, Yair, Pang, Karl, Silverman, Debra T., Znaor, Ariana, Catto, James W.F.·2018·European Urology

Abstract

CONTEXT Bladder cancer (BC) is a significant health problem, and understanding the risk factors for this disease could improve prevention and early detection. OBJECTIVE To provide a systematic review and summary of novel developments in epidemiology and risk factors for BC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A systematic review of original articles was performed by two pairs of reviewers (M.G.C., I.J., F.E., and K.P.) using PubMed/Medline in December 2017, updated in April 2018. To address our primary objective of reporting contemporary studies, we restricted our search to include studies from the last 5yr. We subdivided our review according to specific risk factors (PICO [Population Intervention Comparator Outcome]). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Our search found 2191 articles, of which 279 full-text manuscripts were included. We separated our manuscripts by the specific risk factor they addressed (PICO). According to GLOBOCAN estimates, there were 430000 new BC cases and 165000 deaths worldwide in 2012. Tobacco smoking and occupational exposure to carcinogens remain the factors with the highest attributable risk. The literature was limited by heterogeneity of data. CONCLUSIONS Evidence is emerging regarding gene-environment interactions, particularly for tobacco and occupational exposures. In some populations, incidence rates are declining, which may reflect a decrease in smoking. Standardisation of reporting may help improve epidemiologic evaluation of risk. PATIENT SUMMARY Bladder cancer is common worldwide, and the main risk factors are tobacco smoking and exposure to certain chemicals in the working and general environments. There is ongoing research to identify and reduce risk factors, as well as to understand the impact of genetics on bladder cancer risk.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.09.001

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 76 references

Cited by

See all 820

Metadata

Authors
Cumberbatch, M. G. K., Jubber, I., Black, P. C., Esperto, F., Figueroa, J. D., Kamat, A. M., Kiemeney, L., Lotan, Y., Pang, K., Silverman, D. T., Znaor, A., & Catto, J. W. F.
Venue
European Urology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-12
Volume
74
Issue
6
Pages
784-795
ISSN
0302-2838 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2892569486
Cited by
820
References
76
FWCI
17.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Epidemiology of Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Contemporary Update of Risk Factors in 2018. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.09.001
The paper
Cumberbatch, M. G. K., Jubber, I., Black, P. C., Esperto, F., Figueroa, J. D., Kamat, A. M., Kiemeney, L., Lotan, Y., Pang, K., Silverman, D. T., Znaor, A., & Catto, J. W. F. (2018). Epidemiology of Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Contemporary Update of Risk Factors in 2018. European Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.09.001

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.