Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33718024›Full record

ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2021

A large real-world cohort study of examined lymph node standards for adequate nodal staging in early non-small cell lung cancer.

Zhihua Zhu, Zhengbo Song, Wenjie Jiao, Weijian Mei, Chunwei Xu, Qinghua Huang, Chaolun An, Jianguang Shi, Wenxian Wang, Guiping Yu and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Comment on "The Unbearable Lightness of Difference Between Statistical and Clinical Significance".Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

18 authors.

Zhihua ZhuSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Zhengbo SongCancer Hospital of University of Chinese Academy of Sciences; Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, China.
Wenjie JiaoAffiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Weijian MeiSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Chunwei XuFujian Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Qinghua HuangAffiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Chaolun AnNantong Third People's Hospital, Nantong University, Nantong, China.
Jianguang ShiNingbo First Hospital of Zhejiang University, Ningbo, China.
Wenxian WangCancer Hospital of University of Chinese Academy of Sciences; Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, China.
Guiping YuAffiliated Jiangyin Hospital of Southeast University, Jiangyin, China.
Pingli SunThe Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Yinbin ZhangThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Medical College, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Jianfei ShenTaizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou Medical University, Linhai, China.
Yong SongAffiliated Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.
Jun QianSouthern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Wang YaoThe First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Han YangSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
written on behalf of AME Lung Cancer Collaborative Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) recommend that surgeons sample is not clear. We aimed to define a minimal number of examined lymph nodes for removal or sampling for optimized nodal staging recommendation, with a focus on T

methodsA total of 55,101 consecutive patients were selected, including 52,099 patients with US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data and 3,002 patients in a Chinese multicenter database from 11 thoracic referral centers, who underwent complete resection plus lymph node dissection or sampling for stage T

resultsFive-year survival rates with respect to total examined lymph nodes numbers (examined lymph nodes <10

conclusionsA minimum of 10 examined lymph nodes would significantly improve T

Indexed as

cohort studyexamined lymph node (ELN)minimal numbernodal stagingNon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Identifiers

PMID33718024
PMCPMC7947406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.