Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35804994›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

Prognostic Models Incorporating

Geoffrey Yuet Mun Wong, Connie Diakos, Mark P Molloy, Thomas J Hugh

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Geoffrey Yuet Mun WongDepartment of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia.
Connie DiakosNorthern Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8877-3440
Mark P MolloyBowel Cancer and Biomarker Research Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4679-5868
Thomas J HughDepartment of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recurrence and survival vary widely among patients who undergo curative-intent resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Prognostic models provide estimated probabilities of these outcomes and allow the effects of multiple potentially interacting variables to be adjusted and assessed simultaneously. Although many prognostic models based on clinicopathologic factors have been developed since the 1990s to predict survival after resection of CRLM, these models vary in their predictive performance when applied to contemporary cohorts. Rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (

Indexed as

colorectal liver metastasesprediction modelsprognosisRAS

Identifiers

PMID35804994
PMCPMC9264993
OpenAlexW4283741558

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.