Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28256061›Full record

ArticleCancer science2017

Intraoperative peritoneal lavage cytology offers prognostic significance for gastric cancer patients with curative resection.

Eiji Higaki, Shinya Yanagi, Naoto Gotohda, Takahiro Kinoshita, Takeshi Kuwata, Masato Nagino, Atsushi Ochiai, Satoshi Fujii

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. BMJ open · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Clinical Management of Gastric Cancer Treatment Regimens.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. [Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer. Frequent overtreatment or meaningful concept?]Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2020
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

8 authors.

Eiji HigakiDivision of Pathology, Exploratory Oncology Research & Clinical Trial Center, National Cancer Center, Kashiwa, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0074-7302
Shinya YanagiDivision of Pathology, Exploratory Oncology Research & Clinical Trial Center, National Cancer Center, Kashiwa, Japan.
Naoto GotohdaDivision of Hepatobilliary and Pancreatic Surgery, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan.
Takahiro KinoshitaDepartment of Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan.
Takeshi KuwataDivision of Pathology, Exploratory Oncology Research & Clinical Trial Center, National Cancer Center, Kashiwa, Japan.
Masato NaginoDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Kashiwa, Japan.
Atsushi OchiaiDivision of Pathology, Exploratory Oncology Research & Clinical Trial Center, National Cancer Center, Kashiwa, Japan.
Satoshi FujiiDivision of Pathology, Exploratory Oncology Research & Clinical Trial Center, National Cancer Center, Kashiwa, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Outcomes of patients with gastric cancer who exhibit positive peritoneal lavage cytology findings (CY

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCytodiagnosisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPeritoneal CavityPeritoneal LavagePeritoneal NeoplasmsPeritoneumPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsStomach NeoplasmsYoung AdultCytologygastric cancerlavageperitonealsignet-ring cell

Identifiers

PMID28256061
PMCPMC5448654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.