Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27478323›Full record

ArticleChinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu2016

A mini-review on factors and countermeasures associated with false-negative sentinel lymph node biopsies in breast cancer.

Chao Han, Li Yang, Wenshu Zuo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu, 2016. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chao HanDepartment of Surgery, Shandong Breast Center of Prevention and Treatment, Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan 250117, China.
Li YangDepartment of Surgery, Shandong Breast Center of Prevention and Treatment, Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan 250117, China.
Wenshu ZuoDepartment of Surgery, Shandong Breast Center of Prevention and Treatment, Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan 250117, China.
Shandong Tumor Hospital · CNShandong First Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is a new surgical technique for local axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) of breast cancer. Large-scale clinical trials have confirmed that undergoing SLNB and ALN dissection (ALND) showed no significant difference for sentinel lymph node (SLN)-negative patients in terms of disease-free survival, overall survival and recurrence-free survival. However, false-negative results are still the main concern of physicians as well as patients who undergo SLNB instead of ALND. The American Society of Breast Surgeons established a task force to suggest acceptable standards for SLNB. In 2000, the task force recommended that the identification rate for SLNB be 85% or higher and the false-negative rate be 5% or lower. This review focuses on clinical factors (tumor volume, multifocal/multi-center cancers, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and skip metastasis), tracer techniques and pathological factors affecting SLNB and explores methods for reducing the false-negative rate.

Indexed as

Breast cancerfalse-negative ratesentinel lymph node biopsy

Identifiers

PMID27478323
PMCPMC4949283
OpenAlexW2475796480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.