Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32040700›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of surgical oncology2020

Sarcopenia and Short-Term Outcomes After Esophagectomy: A Meta-analysis.

Pei-Yu Wang, Li-Dong Xu, Xian-Kai Chen, Lei Xu, Yong-Kui Yu, Rui-Xiang Zhang, Hai-Bo Sun, Hui-Li Wu, Yin Li

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of surgical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Pei-Yu WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Zhengzhou Central Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Li-Dong XuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Zhengzhou Central Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Xian-Kai ChenDepartment of Thoracic Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Lei XuDepartment of Thoracic Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yong-Kui YuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Rui-Xiang ZhangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Hai-Bo SunDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Hui-Li WuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Zhengzhou Central Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Yin LiDepartment of Thoracic Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. vats7226@126.com.
Zhengzhou Central Hospital · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNZhengzhou University · CNHenan Cancer Hospital · CN

Funding

Medical and Health Technology Innovation Project of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences 2018-12M-3-003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis meta-analysis aimed to investigate the value of preoperative sarcopenia in predicting complications after esophagectomy. Clinicopathologic characteristics of sarcopenia patients, which may support sarcopenia management, also were studied.

methodsThis study searched for articles describing an association between sarcopenia and short-term outcomes after esophagectomy using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance models were used for the meta-analyses of end points.

resultsThe meta-analysis included 14 studies comprising a total of 2387 patients. Sarcopenia was significantly associated with advanced age (weighted mean difference [WMD], 3.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.22-4.74), lower body mass index (WMD - 2.22; 95% CI - 2.65 to - 1.79), squamous cell carcinoma (odds ratio [OR], 2.78; 95% CI 1.72-4.47), advanced clinical tumor stage (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.28-2.15), and neoadjuvant therapy (OR 1.87; 95% CI 1.38-2.53). The sarcopenia patients showed lower preoperative albumin levels (WMD - 0.11; 95% CI - 0.19 to - 0.04) than the nonsarcopenia patients. Sarcopenia was significantly predictive of pneumonia (OR 2.58; 95% CI 1.75-3.81) and overall complications (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.07-2.15) after esophagectomy. The sarcopenia patients also showed nonsignificant increases in the risks of anastomotic leakage (OR 1.29; 95% CI 0.99-1.67), vocal cord palsy (OR 2.03; 95% CI 0.89-4.64), and major complications (≥ Clavien-Dindo grade III; OR 1.30; 95% CI 0.95-1.79) but not increased operation time, blood loss, or mortality.

conclusionsPreoperative sarcopenia assessment showed considerable potential for predicting postoperative complications for esophageal cancer patients. To realize this potential, more effective diagnostic criteria and severity classifications for sarcopenia are warranted.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsSarcopeniaAnastomotic LeakCarcinoma, Squamous CellEsophagectomyHumansPostoperative Complications

Identifiers

PMID32040700
OpenAlexW3005605344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.