ArticlePleura and peritoneum2020
A review of malignant pleural mesothelioma in a large North East UK pleural centre.
Article in Pleura and peritoneum, 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.
- Understanding pain in malignant mesothelioma: a prospective, longitudinal cohort study.BMC palliative care · 2026Observational
- Multi-institutional survey of malignant pleural mesothelioma patients in the Hokushin region.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2022Article
- Comparison of 3 Randomized Clinical Trials of Frontline Therapies for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.JAMA network open · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe National Mesothelioma Audit 2020 showed Northumbria to have low rates of histopathological confirmation, treatment and one-year survival rates for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). We hypothesized that an internal analysis over a 10-year period provides valuable insights into presentation, diagnosis, treatment and outcomes.
methodsA single-centre retrospective case series of all confirmed MPM patients between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2019 was performed. Demographics, clinical, radiological and histopathological characteristics and outcomes were collected. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS V26.0.
resultsA total of 247 patients had MPM. About 86% were male, mean age 75.7 years. Dyspnoea (77.4%) and chest pain (38.5%) were commonest symptoms. 64.9 and 71.4% had pleural thickening and effusion, respectively. About 86.8% had at least one attempt to obtain a tissue biopsy, but histopathological confirmation in only 108 (43.7%). About 66.3% with PS 0 and 1 (62.7% of total cohort) had at least one anti-cancer therapy. Death within 12 months was associated with disease progression within 6 months (p≤0.001). Chemotherapy (p≤0.001) and epithelioid histological subtype (p=0.01) were protective.
conclusionsThis study confirms known epidemiology of MPM, demonstrates variability in practices and highlights how some NMA recommendations are not met. This provides the incentive for a regional mesothelioma multi-disciplinary meeting.
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.