Efficacy of second-line treatment and importance of comorbidity scores and clinical parameters affecting prognosis in elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer without epidermal growth factor receptor mutations.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of selpercatinib and pralsetinib inFuture oncology (London, England) · 2025
   Article
2. Impact of comorbidity assessment methods to predict non-cancer mortality risk in cancer patients: a retrospective observational study using the National Health Insurance Service claims-based data in Korea.BMC medical research methodology · 2021
   Observational
3. Hyponatremia as a prognostic factor in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational lung cancer research · 2021
   Article

Corrections and comments

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

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as