Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36385957›Full record

ReviewJournal of oncology2022

Sex Disparity in Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Xiaoyi Luan, Penghui Niu, Wanqing Wang, Lulu Zhao, Xiaojie Zhang, Dongbing Zhao, Yingtai Chen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Sex Differences in Cancer Stage at Diagnosis of Nonreproductive Solid Organ Tumors in the United States, 2015 to 2022.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Clinical Pathologic Profiles ofJournal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Xiaoyi LuanNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Beijing 100021, China.
Penghui NiuNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Beijing 100021, China.
Wanqing WangNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Beijing 100021, China.
Lulu ZhaoNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Beijing 100021, China.
Xiaojie ZhangNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Beijing 100021, China.
Dongbing ZhaoNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Beijing 100021, China.
Yingtai ChenNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Beijing 100021, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4342-4335

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to ascertain whether sex-based differences influence clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes of gastric cancer patients. Background: Gastric cancer in females has received less attention than in males. Clinicopathological features and survival outcomes of females with gastric cancer have been reported in several studies with controversial results. Methods: We systematically reviewed clinical studies from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science published up to June 2022. The effect sizes of the included studies were estimated using odds ratios (ORs). Heterogeneity was investigated using the Results: Seventy-six studies with 775,003 gastric cancer patients were included in the meta-analysis. Gastric cancer patients were less likely to be females ( Conclusions: In conclusion, gender differences were observed in clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes of gastric cancer. Different management of therapy will become necessary for different genders.

Identifiers

PMID36385957
PMCPMC9646304

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.