ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2020
Clinical Significance of Various Classification Standards of Age Groups in Predicting Survival of Patients with Glioblastoma.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relationship between iodine nutritional status and low handgrip strength in a Northwestern Chinese cohort: construction of a predictive nomogram model.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Impact of diabetes mellitus on 30-day mortality among acute stroke patients in northern Tanzania.PloS one · 2025Article
- Cognitive functioning is prognostic in patients with IDH1-wild type and MGMT-unmethylated high-grade gliomas.Croatian medical journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The present study aimed to assess the association of various age groups with survival in patients with glioblastoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was used to extracted data on new diagnoses of glioblastoma between 2005 and 2015. Four age models were constructed according to the age at diagnosis. RESULTS A total of 28 734 patients with glioblastoma (16 823 men and 11 911 women) were enrolled in the study. In multivariate analysis, variables including sex, race, tumor, and clinical information were identified as confounding factors to adjust 4 age models. In model 1, ages 39-58, 59-78, and 79+ years were risk factors of survival compared with age 0-18 years. In model 2, ages 18-65, 66-79, and 80+ years were prognostic factors of shorter survival compared with ages 0-17 years. In model 3, ages 45-59, 60-74, and 75+ years were associated with poor prognosis, while ages 18-44 years was associated with favorable clinical outcomes compared with ages 0-17 years. In model 4, ages 18-53, 54-64, and 65+ years were associated with poor prognosis. CONCLUSIONS The differences in prognoses in different age groups of glioblastoma patients suggest that clinicians should incorporate age into routine clinical assessments and develop appropriate treatment strategies.
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.