SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2022
Redefining the role of surgery in early small-cell lung cancer.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lobectomy versus segmentectomy for stage IA3 (T1cN0M0) non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of the HilumDirect uVATS for small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Closing the RCT Gap-A Large Meta-Analysis on the Role of Surgery in Stage I-III Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients.Cancers · 2024Review
- A 15-Gene-Based Risk Signature for Predicting Overall Survival in SCLC Patients Who Have Undergone Surgical Resection.Cancers · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeResection is guideline recommended in stage I small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) but not in stage II. In this stage, patients are treated with a non-surgical approach. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the role of surgery in both SCLC stages. Surgically treated patients were compared to non-surgical controls. Five-year survival rates were analysed.
methodsA systematic literature search was performed on December 01, 2021 in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library. Studies published since 2004 on the effect of surgery in SCLC were considered and assessed using ROBINS-I. We preformed I
resultsOut of 6826 records, we identified seven original studies with a total of 15,170 patients that met our inclusion criteria. We found heterogeneity between these studies and ruled out any publication bias. Patient characteristics did not significantly differ between the two groups (p-value > 0.05). The 5-year survival rates in stage I were 47.4 ± 11.6% for the 'surgery group' and 21.7 ± 11.3% for the 'non-surgery group' (p-value = 0.0006). Our analysis of stage II SCLC revealed a significant survival benefit after surgery (40.2 ± 21.6% versus 21.2 ± 17.3%; p-value = 0.0474).
conclusionBased on our data, the role of surgery in stage I and II SCLC is robust, since it improves the long-term survival in both stages significantly. Hence, feasibility of surgery as a priority treatment should always be evaluated not only in stage I SCLC but also in stage II, for which guideline recommendations might have to be reassessed.
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.