Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35260545›Full record

SynthesisMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2022

Prognostic Significance of Clinicopathological Factors Influencing Overall Survival and Event-Free Survival of Patients with Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Shengwei Kang, Junxiang Wu, Jie Li, Qing Hou, Bin Tang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Prognostic value ofScientific reports · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

Shengwei KangKey Laboratory of Radiation Physics and Technology, Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China (mainland).
Junxiang WuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Radiation Oncology Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu, Sichuan, China (mainland).
Jie LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Radiation Oncology Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu, Sichuan, China (mainland).
Qing HouKey Laboratory of Radiation Physics and Technology, Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China (mainland).
Bin TangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Radiation Oncology Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu, Sichuan, China (mainland).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND Cervical cancer (CC) is the most frequent type of cancer among women and its poor prognosis is a main concern, while the prognostic factors for CC have still remained controversial. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the prognostic significance of clinicopathological factors, influencing overall survival (OS), and event-free survival (EFS) of CC patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS The electronic databases of PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched for identification of eligible studies published until June 2021. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the random-effects model. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses and assessment of publication bias were also conducted. RESULTS We selected 140 studies that involved 47 965 patients for the meta-analysis. The results revealed that age, cell type, depth of tumor invasion, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, hemoglobin level, histological grade, leukocytosis, lymph node involvement, lymph-vascular space invasion, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, parametrial invasion, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, resection margin, squamous cell carcinoma antigen level, thrombocytosis, tumor grade, tumor size, and tumor volume were clinicopathological factors influencing OS and EFS of CC patients (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS This study comprehensively identified the prognostic significance of clinicopathological factors, influencing OS, and EFS of CC patients. However, further large-scale prospective studies should be conducted to verify our findings and develop more accurate prognostic models for CC.

Indexed as

Neoplasm StagingDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleGlobal HealthHumansPrognosisSurvival RateUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID35260545
PMCPMC8919681

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.