ArticlePloS one2016
Nephrectomy Type Was Not Associated with a Subsequent Risk of Coronary Heart Disease: A Population-Based Study.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acute kidney injury in urological conditions.Asian biomedicine : research, reviews and news · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous studies investigated the impacts of a partial nephrectomy (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) on cardiovascular events and death. However, the association between the type of nephrectomy (PN vs. RN) and cardiovascular disease is still equivocal. This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) between patients who underwent a PN and those who underwent an RN. We used data from the Taiwan Longitudinal Health Insurance Database 2005. In total, 60 patients who underwent a PN and 545 patients who underwent an RN were included. Each patient was tracked for 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year periods to identify those who were subsequently diagnosed with CHD. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for CHD during 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up periods between these two cohorts. For the 1-year follow-up period, the adjusted HR was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.05~2.90, p = 0.355) for patients who underwent a PN compared to those who underwent an RN. Additionally, the adjusted HRs of CHD in patients who underwent a PN for 2-, 3- and 5-year follow-up periods were 1.40 (95% CI: 0.62~3.16, p = 0.417), 1.09 (95% CI: 0.52~2.31, p = 0.814), and 1.02 (95% CI: 0.48~2.18, p = 0.961), respectively, compared to those who underwent an RN. We concluded that there was no significant difference in the risk of CHD between patients who underwent a PN and those who underwent an RN.
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.