Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33299347›Full record

ArticleCancer management and research2020

Differential Impact of Systemic Lymphadenectomy Upon the Survival of Patients with Type I vs Type II Endometrial Cancer: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study.

Jie Xu, Can Chen, Jing Xiong, Hua Linghu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer management and research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. 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

4 authors.

Jie XuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400016, People's Republic of China.
Can ChenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chengdu Women & Children's Central Hospital, Sichuan, 610091, People's Republic of China.
Jing XiongDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chongqing Health Center for Women and Children, Chongqing 400021, People's Republic of China.
Hua LinghuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400016, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine whether systemic lymphadenectomy exerts a similar effect on the survival of patients with either type I or type II endometrial cancer (EC). PATIENTS AND

methodsIn this retrospective study, 682 eligible patients diagnosed with EC were typed according to the pathological reports. The thoroughness of lymphadenectomy was evaluated by the lymph node number of which the cut-off value was determined by the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve and Youden index. The impact of thoroughness on the survival of both types was analyzed, respectively, by Kaplan Meier (K-M) method and further evaluated in subgroups with and without lymphatic metastasis. Independent prognostic factors of survival were selected by proportional hazard regression (Cox) model.

resultsThe cut-off level of lymph node number was 20. The differential impact of the lymph node number removed on survival was noted when patients with different types were analyzed separately. Among type II EC, those with >20 lymph nodes removed presented better overall survival (OS) than those with ≤20 (

conclusionSystemic lymphadenectomy could enhance the OS of type II EC other than type I.

Indexed as

endometrial canceroverall survivalsystemic lymphadenectomytype

Identifiers

PMID33299347
PMCPMC7721119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.