Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 293

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Follow-up for Clinically Localized Renal Neoplasms: AUA Guideline

Donat, Sherri M., Diaz, Mireya, Bishoff, Jay Todd, Coleman, Jonathan A., Dahm, Philipp, Derweesh, Ithaar H., Herrell, S. Duke, Hilton, Susan, Jonasch, Eric, Lin, Daniel W., Reuter, Victor E., Chang, Sam S.·2013·Journal of Urology

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical framework for follow-up of clinically localized renal neoplasms undergoing active surveillance, or following definitive therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review identified published articles in the English literature between January 1999 and 2011 relevant to key questions specified by the Panel related to kidney neoplasms and their follow-up (imaging, renal function, markers, biopsy, prognosis). Study designs consisting of clinical trials (randomized or not), observational studies (cohort, case-control, case series) and systematic reviews were included. RESULTS: Guideline statements provided guidance for ongoing evaluation of renal function, usefulness of renal biopsy, timing/type of radiographic imaging and formulation of future research initiatives. A lack of studies precluded risk stratification beyond tumor staging; therefore, for the purposes of postoperative surveillance guidelines, patients with localized renal cancers were grouped into strata of low- and moderate- to high-risk for disease recurrence based on pathological tumor stage. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation for patients on active surveillance and following definitive therapy for renal neoplasms should include physical examination, renal function, serum studies and imaging and should be tailored according to recurrence risk, comorbidities and monitoring for treatment sequelae. Expert opinion determined a judicious course of monitoring/surveillance that may change in intensity as surgical/ablative therapies evolve, renal biopsy accuracy improves and more long-term follow-up data are collected. The beneficial impact of careful follow-up will also need critical evaluation as further study is completed.

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.juro.2013.04.121

Cites

30 of 30 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 30 references

Metadata

Authors
Donat, S. M., Diaz, M., Bishoff, J. T., Coleman, J. A., Dahm, P., Derweesh, I. H., Herrell, S. D., Hilton, S., Jonasch, E., Lin, D. W., Reuter, V. E., & Chang, S. S.
Venue
Journal of Urology
Published
2013-08
Volume
190
Issue
2
Pages
407-416
ISSN
  • 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-3792
OpenAlex
W2141571201
Cited by
293
References
30
FWCI
24.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Follow-up for Clinically Localized Renal Neoplasms: AUA Guideline. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.juro.2013.04.121
The paper
Donat, S. M., Diaz, M., Bishoff, J. T., Coleman, J. A., Dahm, P., Derweesh, I. H., Herrell, S. D., Hilton, S., Jonasch, E., Lin, D. W., Reuter, V. E., & Chang, S. S. (2013). Follow-up for Clinically Localized Renal Neoplasms: AUA Guideline. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.04.121

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.