SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2015
The impact of positive peritoneal cytology on prognosis in patients with cervical cancer: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic Impact of Positive Peritoneal Lavage Cytology on Resectable Pancreatic Body and Tail Cancer: A Retrospective Study.World journal of surgery · 2023Article
- The role of pre-treatment paraaortic surgical staging for cervical cancer in the EMBRACE criteria.Ecancermedicalscience · 2022Article
- Is Cytoreductive Surgery Possible in Cervical Cancer Peritoneal Carcinomatosis?Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2021Article
- Significance of Malignant Peritoneal Cytology on the Survival of Women with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe impact of positive peritoneal cytology on the prognosis of cervical cancer is controversial. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to determine its impact on recurrence, and to investigate correlations between abnormal cytology and/or lymph node metastasis in cervical cancer.
methodsA systematic literature review was conducted through July 2014. Odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated by standard meta-analysis techniques with the fixed-effects models, if there was no significant statistical heterogeneity across studies by using I(2).
resultsOf 303 studies retrieved, 6 were included in the meta-analysis. These six case-control observational studies included 1360 cervical cancer patients who showed negative peritoneal cytology and 64 who showed positive peritoneal cytology. Over the combined study period, 20 of 45 in the positive peritoneal cytology group experienced recurrence, whereas 88 of 539 controls did. The meta-analysis based on the fixed-effects model indicated a significant increase in the risk of recurrence in the positive peritoneal cytology group relative to the control group (OR: 4.47; 95% CI: 2.33-8.58, P<0.001, I(2)=0.0%). Moreover, the results of our meta-analysis suggested that the positive peritoneal cytology group displayed more lymph node metastasis than the negative peritoneal cytology group (OR: 3.73; 95% CI: 2.13-6.53, P<0.001, I(2)=0.0%).
conclusionsAlthough based mainly on retrospective observational studies, our meta-analysis indicates that abnormal peritoneal cytology may be strongly associated with poor prognosis in patients with cervical cancer. Future research should verify this relationship through prospective observational studies over a longer term.
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.