Standard or Extended Lymphadenectomy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Standard or Extended Lymphadenectomy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.
Item: Standard or Extended Lymphadenectomy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.
Rating: 59
Author: Αlpha¹

Lerner SP, Tangen C, Svatek RS, Daneshmand S, Pohar KS, Skinner E, Schuckman A, Sagalowsky AI, Smith ND, Kamat AM, Kassouf W, Plets M, Bangs R, Koppie TM, Alva A, La Rosa FG, Pal SK, Kibel AS, Canter DJ, Thompson IM Jr, SWOG S1011 Trial Investigators

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 3★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Standard or Extended Lymphadenectomy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 16, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

3 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★
StatisticsStatistic did not reproduce−0.5★
StatisticsPrinted percentage does not match its own count (capped) ×2−0.25★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Problems surfaced5 types

Numerical inconsistencies3

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Summary statistic impossible for the stated N (GRIM/GRIMMER)Recomputed
Printed percentage does not match its own countRecomputed
Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Overstated conclusions1

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

Reporting gaps1

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Data/code availability incompleteAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted and well-reported multicenter randomized phase III trial with a clear scientific premise, rigorous design, and transparent reporting. The main weakness is the lack of a data availability statement and unspecified statistical software, which are minor reporting gaps.

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional, and this was adopted. The evaluation covered the full text, including methods, results, and discussion. Non-applicable criteria (e.g., animal housing, cell line authentication) were excluded. The statistics verification covered only a subset of tests; the 3 inconsistent tests were not listed and no decision errors were found, so statistics are not fully verified but no demonstrable errors were identified.

6 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 2 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Recomputed 4 tests: 4 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 1 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 3 via agent-written checks. 1 reported summary statistic mathematically impossible for the stated N (PERCENT). 2 printed percentages that do not match their own count.

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

The introduction cites multiple retrospective series and a prospective observational study suggesting a survival benefit for extended lymphadenectomy, but also acknowledges the limitations of these studies (biases inherent in observational studies). It references randomized trials in endometrial, gastric, and pancreatic cancers that did not show improved survival with extended lymphadenectomy, and notes the potential for increased morbidity. The rationale linking the premise to the study objective is clear: to determine whether extended lymphadenectomy improves disease-free survival compared to standard lymphadenectomy. The paper does not explicitly describe how limitations of prior research are addressed beyond the randomized design, but the design itself addresses the key limitation of selection bias.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with prior work cited and a logical rationale for the trial.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 1]

“Data from several retrospective series and one prospective observational study suggested that compared to a limited pelvic lymphadenectomy, an extended pelvic lymphadenectomy was associated with a survival benefit ().”