Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34938335›Full record

ArticleJournal of oncology2021

Clinical Features of Extragastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Compared with Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: A Retrospective, Multicenter, Real-World Study.

Huolun Feng, Weixian Hu, Chengbin Zheng, Wei Wang, Guoliang Zheng, Xingyu Feng, Wenjun Xiong, Guosheng Lin, Yongjian Zhou, Yan Zhao and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Domestic research on extra-gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A ten-year review.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Huolun FengDepartment of General Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510080, China.
Weixian HuDepartment of General Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510080, China.
Chengbin ZhengDepartment of General Surgery, Jieyang People's Hospital, Jieyang Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Jieyang 522000, China.
Wei WangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510120, China.
Guoliang ZhengDepartment of Gastric Cancer, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shenyang, Liaoning 110042, China.
Xingyu FengDepartment of General Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510080, China.
Wenjun XiongDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510120, China.
Guosheng LinDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian 350001, China.
Yongjian ZhouDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian 350001, China.
Yan ZhaoDepartment of Gastric Cancer, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shenyang, Liaoning 110042, China.
Yong LiDepartment of General Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510080, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1799-4841
Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences · CNFujian Medical University · CNGuangzhou University of Chinese Medicine · CNLiaoning Cancer Hospital & Institute · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to compare the tumor characteristics and long-term outcomes between EGIST and GIST. The confounding function was applied to improve the result credibility in the case of small sample size.

resultsWe matched 43 patients in each of the GIST and EGIST groups by PSM. We compared EGIST data with GIST data to explore the prognostic factors between them. In the multivariate Cox regression model, tumor location of EGIST was negatively correlated with overall survival (after PSM: HR, 4.32; 95% CI, 1.22-15.26) or disease-free survival (after PSM: HR, 9.79; 95% CI, 2.22-43.31), which was also intuitively shown in the Kaplan-Meier survival curves (all

Identifiers

PMID34938335
PMCPMC8687840
OpenAlexW4200011202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.