ArticleOpen medicine (Warsaw, Poland)2020
The Number of Negative Lymph Nodes is Positively Associated with Survival in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients in China.
Article in Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of negative lymph node removal on survival in esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- The Lymph Node Ratio as a Predictive Biomarker for Individualized Benefit from Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort and Causal Machine Learning Study.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2026Article
- Impact of two‑field or three‑field lymphadenectomy on overall survival in middle and lower thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A single‑center retrospective analysis.Oncology letters · 2023Article
- A new risk score model based on lactate dehydrogenase for predicting prognosis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma treated with chemoradiotherapy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- Risk factors for long-term survival in patients with ypN+ M0 rectal cancer after radical anterior resection.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Optimal Range of Lymphadenectomy in Pathological Stage T1 and T2 Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- [Positive lymph node ratio ≥0.16 is an independent risk factor affecting the prognosis of patients with esophageal cancer].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2020Article
- Prognostic significance of the number of lymph nodes dissection in esophageal adenocarcinoma patients.Translational cancer research · 2020Article
- The Number of Harvested LNs Is an Independent Prognostic Factor in Lymph Node Metastasis-negative Patients Who Received Curative Esophagectomy.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
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
backgroundThere is a controversial relationship between the negative lymph nodes (NLNs) and survival in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). This study investigates the implications of total number of NLNs on thoracic ESCC patient prognosis.
methods579 thoracic ESCC patients were categorized into four groups (0-9, 10-14, 15-19 and ≥20 NLNs). Univariate analysis was done by the log-rank tests while multivariate analysis was undertaken using Cox regression models. Survival analysis was determined employing the Kaplan-Meier method.
resultsWhen the numbers of NLNs were 9 or less, 10 to 14, 15 to 19 and 20 or more, patients of 3-year survival rates were 21.7%, 40.0%, 61.2% and 77.5%, respectively (
conclusionNLNs numbers is a significant independent prognostic indicator for thoracic ESCC patients' survival after curative esophagectomy.
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.