Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31277173›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2019

A comparison of the prognosis of papillary and clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Evidence from a meta-analysis.

Jun Deng, Lei Li, Haimei Xia, Ju Guo, Xin Wu, Xiaorong Yang, Yanyan Hong, Qingke Chen, Jieping Hu

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jun DengDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University.
Lei LiDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University.
Haimei XiaDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University.
Ju GuoDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University.
Xin WuDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University.
Xiaorong YangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University.
Yanyan HongDepartment of Nursing, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Qingke ChenDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University.
Jieping HuDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University.
First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University · CNNanchang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the prognosis of papillary and clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in order to determine the optimal follow-up and therapy for patients with RCC.

methodsA systematic search of Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases was conducted for articles published through July 30, 2018, reporting on a comparison of the prognosis of papillary RCC and clear cell RCC using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.

resultsOf 1896 studies, 11 were considered for the evidence synthesis. A total of 35,832 patients were included. Of these patients, 6907 patients were diagnosed with papillary renal cell carcinoma, and 28,925 patients were diagnosed with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. The prognosis of papillary RCC was better than that of clear cell RCC (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.56; P < .001; I = 91.9%). A subgroup analysis indicated that papillary RCC was associated with better outcomes (HR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.50-1.16), and a trend toward a higher risk of mortality was observed in patients with metastatic RCC presenting with papillary histology, but the difference was not statistically significant (HR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.71-1.76, P = .085). Pooled data suggested a lack of a significant difference between papillary RCC (p-RCC) type 1 and clear cell RCC (cc-RCC) (HR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.12-0.73, P = .085). The pooled HR for the prognosis of p-RCC type 2 compared to cc-RCC was 1.69 (95% CI 0.93-3.08; P = .032).

conclusionPapillary RCC is associated with better outcomes than clear cell RCC in patients without metastases, but not in patients with metastases. Optimal follow-up or therapy for patients with RCC should be assigned according to the tumor stage and subtype.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellHumansKidney NeoplasmsPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID31277173
PMCPMC6635153
OpenAlexW2960955875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.