Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31966000›Full record

ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2020

A Competing Risk Analysis Study of Prognosis in Patients with Esophageal Carcinoma 2006-2015 Using Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database.

Zhaohua Yu, Jin Yang, Lei Gao, Qiao Huang, Hao Zi, Xiaodong Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Zhaohua YuDepartment of Surgery, Huaihe Hospital of Henan University, Kaifeng, Henan, China (mainland).
Jin YangClinical Research Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China (mainland).
Lei GaoDepartment of Surgery, Huaihe Hospital of Henan University, Kaifeng, Henan, China (mainland).
Qiao HuangCenter for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, China (mainland).
Hao ZiDepartment of Surgery, Huaihe Hospital of Henan University, Kaifeng, Henan, China (mainland).
Xiaodong LiDepartment of Surgery, Huaihe Hospital of Henan University, Kaifeng, Henan, China (mainland).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND Competing risk analysis determines the probability of survival and considers competing events. This retrospective study aimed to undertake a competing risk analysis of prognosis in patients with esophageal carcinoma between 2006-2015 using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. MATERIAL AND METHODS Clinicopathological, demographic, and survival data were analyzed for patients with esophageal carcinoma registered in the SEER database between 2006-2015. The competing risk model calculated the cumulative incidence function (CIF) of events of interest and prognosis. The Cox proportional-hazards model and the cause-specific hazard function (CS) were used to generalize the hazard function for competing risks. The Fine-Gray model was used for multivariate analysis. More accurate prognostic factors were analyzed by comparing the hazard ratio (HR) values between groups. RESULTS There were 14,695 patients identified with esophageal carcinoma, 9,621 died from esophageal carcinoma, and 1,251 patients died from other causes. The cumulative incidence of events of interest was significant for age at diagnosis, race, primary tumor site, grade, stage, and treatment with surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy (P<0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that age at diagnosis, primary tumor site, grade, stage, and treatment with surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy statuses were independent prognostic factors (P<0.05). The Fine-Gray and the CS model showed that grade, stage, and treatments with surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy were significant independent prognostic factors (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS A competing risk model used data from the SEER database to obtain a more accurate estimate of the CIF of esophageal carcinoma-specific mortality and prognostic factors.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCause of DeathDatabases, FactualEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisNomogramsProbabilityPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID31966000
PMCPMC6996264

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-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.