Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17075976›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2006

Survival benefit in patients after palliative resection vs non-resection colon cancer surgery.

A Beham, M Rentsch, K Püllmann, L Mantouvalou, H Spatz, H J Schlitt, A Obed

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A BehamDepartment of Surgery, The University of Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauss Allee 11, 93053 Regensburg, Germany. alexander.beham@klinik.uni-regensburg.de
M Rentsch
K Püllmann
L Mantouvalou
H Spatz
H J Schlitt
A Obed
University of Regensburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo evaluate survival in patients undergoing palliative resection versus non-resection surgery for primary colorectal cancer in a retrospective analysis.

methodsDemographics, TNM status, operating details and survival were reviewed for 67 patients undergoing surgery for incurable colorectal cancer. Palliative resection of the primary tumor was performed in 46 cases in contrast to 21 patients with non-resection of the primary tumor and bypass surgery. Risk factors for postoperative mortality and poor survival were analyzed with univariate and multivariate analyses.

resultsThe two groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, preoperative presence of ileus and tumor stage. Multivariate analysis showed that median survival was significantly higher in patients with palliative resection surgery (544 vs 233 d). Differentiation of the tumor and tumor size were additional independent factors that were associated with a significantly poorer survival rate.

conclusionPalliative resection surgery for primary colorectal cancer is associated with a higher median survival rate. Also, the presence of liver metastasis and tumor size are associated with poor survival. Therefore, resection of the primary tumor should be considered in patients with non-curable colon cancer.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overColonic NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasm StagingPalliative CareRetrospective StudiesSurvival Rate

Identifiers

PMID17075976
PMCPMC4125668
OpenAlexW287280187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.