ArticlePloS one2013
Clinical and pathologic factors affecting lymph node yields in colorectal cancer.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Lymph Nodal Yield and Pattern of Spread in Carcinoma Rectum: A Study on Non-formalin Fixed Freshly Resected Surgical Specimen Dissection.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Optimal lymph node yield for long-term survival in elderly patients with right-sided colon cancer: a large population-based cohort study.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Lymph node harvest as a predictor of survival for colon cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgery in practice and science · 2023Review
- Influence of colonic mesenteric area on the number of lymph node retrieval for colon cancer: a prospective cohort study.Annals of coloproctology · 2023Article
- Indications, feasibility and outcome of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for metastatic testicular germ cell tumours.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Effect of preoperative colonoscopic tattooing on lymph node harvest in T1 colorectal cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLymph node yield is recommended as a benchmark of quality care in colorectal cancer. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of various factors upon lymph node yield and to identify independent factors associated with lymph node harvest. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe records of 162 patients with Stage I to Stage III colorectal cancers seen in one institution were reviewed. These patients underwent radical surgery as definitive therapy; high-risk patients then received adjuvant treatment. Pathologic and demographic data were recorded and analyzed. The subgroup analysis of lymph node yields was determined using a t-test and analysis of variants. Linear regression model and multivariable analysis were used to perform potential confounding and predicting variables.
resultsFive variables had significant association with lymph node yield after adjustment for other factors in a multiple linear regression model. These variables were: tumor size, surgical method, specimen length, and individual surgeon and pathologist. The model with these five significant variables interpreted 44.4% of the variation.
conclusionsPatients, tumor characteristics and surgical variables all influence the number of lymph nodes retrieved. Physicians are the main gatekeepers. Adequate training and optimized guidelines could greatly improve the quality of lymph node yields.
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.