Following this puts new work involving it at the top of your briefing, with a note saying why it is there. Links are taken from the source record, never inferred.
Single-centre case series of 15 patients with uncontrolled hemorrhagic cystitis treated with arterial embolization; real clinical outcome but uncontrolled design, no comparator, and small sample limit strength of evidence.
A single case report with literature review describing a rare adverse event; provides clinical observation and management guidance but lacks comparative data or controlled evidence of incidence or causality.
A single case report with sustained disease response offers an anecdotal observation but lacks the controlled design, comparator, or sample size needed to establish efficacy; the authors explicitly acknowledge limited evidence requiring validation.
Baseline cross-sectional descriptive study from an ongoing trial, measuring associations between quality of life and symptom burden in treatment-naïve patients; provides foundational data but no intervention effect, control arm, or outcome data.
Large, rigorous meta-analysis of 38 randomized phase 3 trials with 31,721 patients showing statistically significant OS and disease-free survival benefits from ICIs in curative solid tumors, with no sex difference detected, though female underrepresentation limits generalizability.
A narrative review synthesizing current evidence and raising mechanistic questions about tertiary lymphoid structures in urothelial carcinoma, without new empirical data or prospective validation of proposed biomarker relationships.
A systematic review synthesizing evidence on biomarkers for BCG therapy prediction in bladder cancer; provides a landscape assessment rather than a new empirical result, identifying gaps and promising directions for clinical practice.
A single-centre, underpowered cross-sectional pilot study explicitly designed as hypothesis-generating, with a null primary finding that the authors acknowledge cannot rule out a clinically meaningful effect.