ArticleBMC medical research methodology2012
Risk groups defined by Recursive Partitioning Analysis of patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma treated with colorectal resection.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- The process and utility of classification and regression tree methodology in nursing research.Journal of advanced nursing · 2014Pooled it
- Establishment of a Novel Risk Stratification System Integrating Clinical and Pathological Parameters for Prognostication and Clinical Decision-Making in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Classification and Regression Tree and Computer Adaptive Testing in Cardiac Rehabilitation: Instrument Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Patterns of Caregiver Factors Predicting Participation in Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.Journal of child & adolescent trauma · 2019Article
- Using patient self-reports to study heterogeneity of treatment effects in major depressive disorder.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2017Review
- Testing a machine-learning algorithm to predict the persistence and severity of major depressive disorder from baseline self-reports.Molecular psychiatry · 2016Article
- Observational
- Can composite performance measures predict survival of patients with colorectal cancer?World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Observational
- The effects of co-morbidity in defining major depression subtypes associated with long-term course and severity.Psychological medicine · 2014Article
- Major depressive disorder subtypes to predict long-term course.Depression and anxiety · 2014Article
- The Association between Survival and the Pathologic Features of Periampullary Tumors Varies over Time.HPB surgery : a world journal of hepatic, pancreatic and biliary surgery · 2014Article
- Invited commentary: Off-roading with social epidemiology--exploration, causation, translation.American journal of epidemiology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo define different prognostic groups of surgical colorectal adenocarcinoma patients derived from recursive partitioning analysis (RPA).
methodsTen thousand four hundred ninety four patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma underwent colorectal resection from Taiwan Cancer Database during 2003 to 2005 were included in this study. Exclusion criteria included those patients with stage IV disease or without number information of lymph nodes. For the definition of risk groups, the method of classification and regression tree was performed. Main primary outcome was 5-year cancer-specific survival.
resultsWe identified six prognostic factors for cancer-specific survival, resulting in seven terminal nodes. Four risk groups were defined as following: Group 1 (mild risk, 1,698 patients), Group 2 (moderate risk, 3,129 patients), Group 3 (high risk, 4,605 patients) and Group 4 (very high risk, 1,062 patients). The 5-year cancer-specific survival for Group 1, 2, 3, and 4 was 86.6%, 62.7%, 55.9%, and 36.6%, respectively (p < 0.001). Hazard ratio of death was 2.13, 5.52 and 10.56 (95% confidence interval 1.74-2.60, 4.58-6.66 and 8.66-12.9, respectively) times for Group 2, 3, and 4 as compared to Group 1. The predictive capability of these grouping was also similar in terms of overall and progression-free survival.
conclusionThe use of RPA offered an alternative grouping method that could predict the survival of patients who underwent surgery for colorectal adenocarcinoma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.