SynthesisJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2022
Sublobar resection versus ablation for stage I non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- CT-guided ablation for stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a comparative study between cryoablation and microwave ablation.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Article
- Lung Cancer and Interstitial Lung Diseases.Cancers · 2024Review
- Survival after thermal ablation versus wedge resection for stage I non-small cell lung cancer < 1 cm and 1 to 2 cm: evidence from the US SEER database.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024Article
- Image-Guided Percutaneous and Transarterial Therapies for Primary and Metastatic Lung Cancer.Technology in cancer research & treatmentReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can be treated by both ablation and sublobar resection (SR). This meta-analysis was therefore designed to better compare the relative safety and efficacy of these two approaches to treating stage I NSCLC. MATERIALS AND
methodsRelevant studies published through November 2020 in the Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases were identified for analyses which were conducted with RevMan v5.3.
resultsIn total, 816 potentially relevant articles were identified, of which 8 were ultimately included in the final meta-analysis. Patients in the SR group exhibited a signficantly lower pooled local recurrence (LR) rate (5.0% vs. 25.4%, P < 0.0001), although pooled distant recurrence (DR) rates were similar in both groups (25.7% vs. 23.1%, P = 0.75). The pooled hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.13-1.33, P < 0.00001), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.15-1.55, P = 0.0002), and cancer-specific survival (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.15-1.70, P = 0.0009) all indicated better survival outcomes among patients that underwent HR treatment, while pooled complication rates were similar in both groups (27.7% vs. 43.8%, P = 0.27). Patients that underwent ablation exhibited significantly shorter pooled post-operative hospitalization relative to those in the SR group (MD: 5.93; 95% CI: 0.78-11.07, P = 0.02). No evidence of publication bias was detected through funnel plot analyses.
conclusionsSR treatment of stage I NSCLC patients was associated with a lower LR rate and longer survival as compared to ablation.
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.