Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35282108›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022

The efficacy of

Jiayong Liu, Zhichao Tan, Ruifeng Xue, Zhengfu Fan, Chujie Bai, Shu Li, Tian Gao, Lu Zhang, Zhiwei Fang, Lu Si

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 49% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The efficacy and predictive value ofWorld journal of surgical oncology · 2026
    Article
  3. Frontiers in oncology · 2023
    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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jiayong Liu *Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China.
Zhichao Tan *Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China.
Ruifeng Xue *Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China.
Zhengfu FanKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China.
Chujie BaiKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China.
Shu LiKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China.
Tian GaoKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China.
Lu ZhangKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China.
Zhiwei FangKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China.
Lu SiKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Renal Cancer and Melanoma, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China.
Peking University · CNPeking University Cancer Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The sentinel lymph node (SLN) status is a vital prognostic factor for malignant melanoma (MM) patients. There is increasing evidence that a radioactive agent, rather than its combination with blue dye, is sufficient for a SLN biopsy (SLNB). Thus, we discussed the efficacy of Methods: A total of 502 consecutive patients with MM who underwent SLNB were enrolled in this study. All participants were peritumorally injected with Results: The SLNs were successfully imaged via SPECT-CT and harvested from all 502 participants. No drainage tube was indwelled and 32 (6.3%) participants experienced the following complications: seroma (n=26, 5.2%), wound infections or lymphangitis (n=6, 1.2%), sensory nerve injuries (n=4, 0.8%). There were 380 patients who were diagnosed as SLN-negative and 122 (24.2%) were SLN-positive. A total of 85 SLN-positive patients received complete lymph node dissection, and 28 (32.9%) had additional positive lymph nodes. During a median follow-up of 24 months, 28 participants were found to have a false negative (FN) SLN. The FN rate was 18.7%. A higher T stage was a predictive factor for FN [odds ratio (OR) 1.77; P<0.05]. There was no significant difference in the positive or FN rate between the acral and cutaneous groups. Conclusions: The radiopharmaceutical

Indexed as

99mTc-rituximabfalse negativeMelanomaradioactive tracersentinel node biopsy

Identifiers

PMID35282108
PMCPMC8848438
OpenAlexW4210734582

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.