ArticleCancer management and research2018
Performance status dynamics during treatment with
Article in Cancer management and research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chemotherapy and radiotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Mitochondrial-Associated Protein LRPPRC is Related With Poor Prognosis Potentially and Exerts as an OncogeneFrontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Recent advances in "smart" delivery systems for extended drug release in cancer therapy.International journal of nanomedicine · 2018Review
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis analysis examined changes in Karnofsky performance status (KPS) as a surrogate for patient's well-being during treatment with PARTICIPANTS AND
methodsDescriptive analyses were performed for KPS at three time points (3 and 6 months after randomization and 1 month before disease progression) and for time to any KPS deterioration. Time to definitive KPS deterioration (≥10-point KPS decrease from baseline) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A larger decrease from baseline (≥20 points) was investigated as a sensitivity analysis. A Cox proportional hazards model analyzed the effect of baseline factors (including treatment) potentially associated with time to definitive deterioration.
resultsThe two treatment arms had generally comparable time to any KPS deterioration, similar KPS at 3 and 6 months after randomization and at 1 month before disease progression, and no significant difference in time to definitive deterioration. Baseline KPS, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, age, liver metastases, and region had a significant effect on time to definitive KPS deterioration, but treatment arm did not.
conclusionThe increased survival observed with
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.