ArticleZhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer2014
[A study on quality of life after thoracoscopic assistant lobectomy for lung cancer].
Article in Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional radical surgeries for lung cancer incur a large amount of trauma, thoracoscopic surgeries can reduce trauma, and hopefully improve patients' postoperative quality of life (QOL). The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of thoracoscopic radical surgeries on quality of life of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
methodsUse Quality of Life-Core 30 Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) which was exploited by European Organization for Research and Treatment (EORTC) and Quality of Life-Lung Cancer 13 Questionnaire (QLQ-LC13) which is the supplementary questionnaire according to the lung cancer patients to evaluate QOL of 60 NSCLC patients in thoracoscopic surgery group and conventional surgery group from 3 days before operation to 24 weeks after operation.
resultsA total of 215 questionnaires were collected from 60 patients; 25 postoperative questionnaires were not completed because patients could not be contacted for follow-up visits. QOL declined markedly in all patients at 3 days postoperatively; preoperative and 3-day postoperative global QOL scores in the conventional surgery and thoracoscopic surgery group were 87.8 ± 10.3 vs 38.3 ± 13.1 (P<0.001) and 82.7 ± 9.6 vs 56.3 ± 14.8 (P<0.001), respectively. Thereafter, QOL recovered gradually in all patients. Patients who underwent open surgery showed the most pronounced decline in QOL; global scores were lower in this group than in the thoracoscopic surgery group (P=0.012,9) at 3 days postoperatively and was not restored to the preoperative level at 24 weeks postoperatively (P=0.012,4). QOL declined less in patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery, and most indices had recovered to preoperative levels at 24 weeks postoperatively.
conclusionsWith the advantages of small trauma, faster recovery and higher postoperative QOL, thoracoscopic surgery is a preferable lung cancer surgery.
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.