ReviewLung Cancer (Auckland, N.Z.)2016
Optimal delivery of follow-up care following pulmonary lobectomy for lung cancer.
Review in Lung Cancer (Auckland, N.Z.), 2016. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic Factors and Survival Data of Stage I Lung Cancer: A Single-Center Experience.Journal of clinical practice and research · 2025Article
- Enhanced recovery after surgery pathways in thoracic surgery, do they end at discharge?Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Prognostic factors of patients with pathologic stage I lung adenocarcinoma.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
- Long-term CT surveillance after primary lung cancer treatment captures events in all risk groups.Translational lung cancer research · 2018Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe rationale for oncologic surveillance following pulmonary lobectomy is to detect recurrent disease or a second primary lung cancer early enough so that an intervention can increase survival and/or improve quality of life. Therefore, we reviewed literature for international guidelines and reorganized these useful factors associated with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) recurrence as remedies in postoperative follow-up.
methodThe population of interest for this review was patients who had been treated with complete resection for primary NSCLC and were in follow-up.
resultGuidelines on follow-up care for NSCLC vary internationally. Because of the production of progressive medical modalities, the current follow-up care should be corrected.
conclusionThe specific follow-up schedule for computed tomography imaging may be more or less frequent, depending upon risk factors for recurrence. Many different predictors of postoperative recurrence may help to optimize the patient selection for specified surveillance guidelines and personalized adjuvant therapies to prevent possibly occult micrometastases and to get a better outcome.
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.