ArticleWorld journal of surgery2021
Traveling to Receive Treatment for Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcomas: Is it worth the drive?
Article in World journal of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- WHERE ARE THE ORTHOPEDIC ONCOLOGY CENTERS IN THE BRAZILIAN UNIFIED HEALTH SYSTEM (SUS)?Acta ortopedica brasileira · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegionalization of sarcoma care may improve outcomes. Concerns exist regarding the burdens of travel and its effects on care. We evaluate the presence of a "distance bias".
methodsRetrospective cohort study of patients with extremity soft tissue sarcoma (stage I-III) within the NCDB. Travel distance (TD) and hospital volume (VOL) were categorized into quartiles. Alternating statistical models were used for analysis.
results1,035 hospitals contributed 11,979 cases. Median and maximum VOL were 5 and 45 cases/year. VOL quartiles were "low-volume" (LV) (892 hospitals, < 3 cases/yr.), "intermediate low-volume" (ILV) (89, 3-5 cases/yr.), "intermediate high-volume" (IHV) (39, 6-12 cases/yr.), and "high-volume" (HV) (15, > 12 cases/yr.). TD quartiles: "short-travel" (ST) (< 8 mi), "intermediate-short travel" (IST) (8-17), "intermediate long-travel" (ILT) (18-49), and "long-travel" (LT) (> 50). VOL but not TD is associated with improved survival [HR 0.65 (CI 0.52-0.83)] and rate of R0 resection [1.87 (CI 1.4-2.5)] but has no effect on amputation rates. Matched analyses demonstrate similar results.
conclusionsHospital volume but not distance traveled to treatment facility is associated with improved survival and R0 resections for extremity soft tissue sarcomas. Despite the inconveniences of travel, patients may benefit from treatment at high volume centers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33891137What 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.