Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18081216›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2007

What's wrong with sentinel node mapping in colon cancer?

Ronan A Cahill

Open access · hybridAbstract readEditorialReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Assessment of lymph node involvement in colorectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2016
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. [Tumors of the lower gastrointestinal tract : Indication and extent of lymph node dissection].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2010
    Article
  10. 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

1 author.

Ronan A Cahill

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite near-universal embrace of the concept and clinical relevance of lymphatic mapping for sentinel node identification and analysis for cancers of the breast and integument, the same technique has struggled to a find a role in gastrointestinal cancers in general and, perhaps, in colon cancer in particular. Despite many studies demonstrating its feasibility in malignancies of the large bowel, concern is continually aroused by the variable and often unacceptably low sensitivity rates. Additionally, many confess uncertainty as to what benefit it could ever confer to patients even if it were proven sufficiently accurate given that standard surgical resection incorporates mesenteric resection anyway. However, the huge impact sentinel node mapping has had on clinical practice in certain cancers means that each of these aspects merit careful reconsideration, from very first principles.

Indexed as

Sentinel Lymph Node BiopsyColonic NeoplasmsHumansLymphatic MetastasisNeoplasm StagingPredictive Value of TestsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID18081216
PMCPMC4205446
OpenAlexW2121252320

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.