SynthesisMedicine2019
Prognostic significance of tumor length in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing radical resection: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prognostic impact of tumor length in esophageal Cancer: a systematic review and Meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2021Pooled it
- Tiam1 high expression is associated with poor prognosis in solid cancers: A meta-analysis.Medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Development and validation of a nomogram for incorporatingJournal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Tumour length as an independent prognostic factor in resectable oesophageal carcinoma.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2020Article
- Tumor Size as a Critical Prognostic Factor in T1-2 Stage Esophageal Cancer.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2020Article
- Prognostic Value of CT Imaging-Based Tumor Volume in Patients With Non-Surgical Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prognostic significance of tumor length in esophageal cancer (EC) remains controversial. Hence, we conducted a meta-analysis to quantitatively assess the prognostic significance of tumor length in EC patients.
methodA systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Hazard ratios (HRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the prognostic significance of tumor length for overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) in EC patients.
resultsA total of 21 articles with 22 eligible studies involving 9271 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results of our pooling analyses demonstrated that tumor length was an independent prognostic parameter for OS (HR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.24-1.54, P < .01) and DFS (HR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.11-1.50, P < .01) in EC patients. Moreover, our subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis showed that the pooled HRs assessing the prognostic significance of tumor length did not significantly fluctuated, suggesting our pooling analyses were stable and reliable.
conclusionThe results of this meta-analysis demonstrated that long tumor is an independent risk of poor OS and DFS in EC patients, suggesting that it may provide additional prognostic information and thus contribute to a better stratification of EC patients, especially for those with no lymph node metastasis. However, more well-designed prospective clinical studies with large sample size are needed to strength our conclusion due to several limitations in this meta-analysis.
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.