ReviewInternational journal of clinical and experimental pathology2017
A meta-analysis: could we predict the malignancy of solid pseudopapillary neoplasm?
Review in International journal of clinical and experimental pathology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Review of Clinicopathological Characteristics and Treatment of Solid Pseudopapillary Tumor of the Pancreas with 2450 Cases in Chinese Population.BioMed research international · 2020Review
- The Prognostic Factors of Preoperative Prognostic Nutritional Index and Radiological Findings of Solid Pseudopapillary Tumors of Pancreas: A Single-Center Experience of 14 Years.Cancer management and research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the risk factors influencing the malignant potential of solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN).
methodsThis meta-analysis used MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and web of science including 14 cohort studies reporting the risk factors influencing the malignant potential after the initial operation on SPN up to March 2017. Review Manager Software 5.2 was used for meta-analysis.
results14 studies with a total of 763 patients were included in our meta-analysis. In all the variables, age and tumor size were significantly correlated with malignancy.
conclusionMalignant SPNs tended to be larger in diameter and younger in age than benign type. In particularly, larger tumor size may be a crucial factor for decision of aggressive resection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31966784PMC6965911What 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.