Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29879023›Full record

Observational studyMedicine2018

Outcome predictors in the management of intramedullary classic ependymoma: An integrative survival analysis.

Yinqing Wang, Ranze Cai, Rui Wang, Chunhua Wang, Chunmei Chen

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

5 authors.

Yinqing WangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Ranze Cai
Rui Wang
Chunhua Wang
Chunmei Chen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This is a retrospective study.The aim of this study was to illustrate the survival outcomes of patients with classic ependymoma (CE) and identify potential prognostic factors.CE is the most common category of spinal ependymomas, but few published studies have discussed predictors of the survival outcome.A Boolean search of the PubMed, Embase, and OVID databases was conducted by 2 investigators independently. The objects were intramedullary grade II ependymoma according to 2007 WHO classification. Univariate Kaplan-Meier analysis and Log-Rank tests were performed to identify variables associated with progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). Multivariate Cox regression was performed to assess hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Statistical analysis was performed by SPSS version 23.0 (IBM Corp.) with statistical significance defined as P < .05.A total of 35 studies were identified, including 169 cases of CE. The mean follow-up time across cases was 64.2 ± 51.5 months. Univariate analysis showed that patients who had undergone total resection (TR) had better PFS and OS than those with subtotal resection (STR) and biopsy (P = .002, P = .004, respectively). Within either univariate or multivariate analysis (P = .000, P = .07, respectively), histological type was an independent prognostic factor for PFS of CE [papillary type: HR 0.002, 95% CI (0.000-0.073), P = .001, tanycytic type: HR 0.010, 95% CI (0.000-0.218), P = .003].It was the first integrative analysis of CE to elucidate the correlation between kinds of factors and prognostic outcomes. Definite histological type and safely TR were foundation of CE's management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultEpendymomaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeurosurgical ProceduresOutcome Assessment, Health CarePrognosisRetrospective StudiesSpinal Cord NeoplasmsSurvival AnalysisYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29879023
PMCPMC5999504

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-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.