Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 938

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Treatment of Non-Metastatic Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: AUA/ASCO/ASTRO/SUO Guideline

Open access
Chang, Sam S., Bochner, Bernard H., Chou, Roger, Dreicer, Robert, Kamat, Ashish M., Lerner, Seth P., Lotan, Yair, Meeks, Joshua J., Michalski, Jeff M., Morgan, Todd M., Quale, Diane Z., Rosenberg, Jonathan E., Zietman, Anthony L., Holzbeierlein, Jeffrey M.·2017·Journal of Urology
DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2017.04.086
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: This multidisciplinary, evidence-based guideline for clinically non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer focuses on the evaluation, treatment and surveillance of muscle-invasive bladder cancer guided toward curative intent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review utilizing research from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality as well as additional supplementation by the authors and consultant methodologists was used to develop the guideline. Evidence-based statements were based on body of evidence strengths Grade A, B or C and were designated as Strong, Moderate and Conditional Recommendations with additional statements presented in the form of Clinical Principles or Expert Opinions. RESULTS: For the first time for any type of malignancy, the American Urological Association, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology and Society of Urologic Oncology have formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk-stratified clinical framework for the management of muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer. This document is designed to be used in conjunction with the associated treatment algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: The intensity and scope of care for muscle-invasive bladder cancer should focus on the patient, disease and treatment response characteristics. This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to evaluate and treat each patient, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve level of care for these patients.

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.2017.04.086

Cites

18 of 18 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 18 references

Cited by

See all 938

Metadata

Authors
Chang, S. S., Bochner, B. H., Chou, R., Dreicer, R., Kamat, A. M., Lerner, S. P., Lotan, Y., Meeks, J. J., Michalski, J. M., Morgan, T. M., Quale, D. Z., Rosenberg, J. E., Zietman, A. L., & Holzbeierlein, J. M.
Venue
Journal of Urology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2017-09
Volume
198
Issue
3
Pages
552-559
ISSN
  • 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-3792
DOI
10.1016/j.juro.2017.04.086
OpenAlex
W2609787832
Cited by
938
References
18
FWCI
76.56
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: Treatment of Non-Metastatic Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: AUA/ASCO/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.juro.2017.04.086
The paper
Chang, S. S., Bochner, B. H., Chou, R., Dreicer, R., Kamat, A. M., Lerner, S. P., Lotan, Y., Meeks, J. J., Michalski, J. M., Morgan, T. M., Quale, D. Z., Rosenberg, J. E., Zietman, A. L., & Holzbeierlein, J. M. (2017). Treatment of Non-Metastatic Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: AUA/ASCO/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.04.086

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.