Observational studyWorld journal of gastroenterology2014
Can composite performance measures predict survival of patients with colorectal cancer?
Observational study in World journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Adherence to quality indicators and hospital outcomes for patients with decompensated cirrhosis: An observational study.Canadian liver journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess the relationship between long-term colorectal patient survival and methods of calculating composite performance scores.
methodsThe Taiwan Cancer Database was used to identify patients who underwent bowel resection for colorectal adenocarcinoma between 2003 and 2004. Patients were assigned to one of three cohorts based on tumor staging: cohort 1, colon cancer stage < III; cohort 2, colon cancer stage III; cohort 3, rectal cancer. A composite performance score (CPS) was calculated for each patient using five different aggregating methods, including all-or-none, 70% standard, equal weight, analytic hierarchy process (AHP), and principal component analysis (PCA) algorithms. The relationships between CPS and five-year overall, disease-free, and disease-specific survivals were evaluated by a Cox proportional hazards model. A goodness-of-fit analysis for all five methods was performed using Akaike's information criterion.
resultsA total of 3272 colorectal cancer patients (cohort 1, 1164; cohort 2, 790; cohort 3, 1318 patients) with a mean age of 65 years were enrolled in the study. Bivariate correlation analysis showed that CPS values from the equal weight method were highly correlated with those from the AHP method in all cohorts (all P < 0.05). Multivariate Cox hazards analysis showed that CPS values derived from equal weight and AHP methods were significantly associated with five-year survivals of patients in cohorts 1 and 2 (all P < 0.05). In these cohorts, higher CPS values suggested a higher probability of five-year survival. However, CPS values derived from the all-or-none method did not show any significant process-outcome relationship in any cohort. Goodness-of-fit analyses showed that CPS values derived from the PCA method were the best fit to the Cox proportional hazards model, whereas the values from the all-or-none model showed the poorest fit.
conclusionCPS values may highlight process-outcome relationships for patients with colorectal cancer in addition to evaluating quality of care performance.
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.