Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36471886›Full record

ArticleJournal of oncology2022

A Model for Predicting Clinical Prognosis in Patients with WHO Grade 2 Glioma.

Qi Gao, Huandi Zhou, Guohui Wang, Zhenghui Ma, Jiayuan Li, Hong Wang, Guozhu Sun, Xiaoying Xue

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Qi GaoDepartment of Radiotherapy, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang 050000, Hebei Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9867-6110
Huandi ZhouDepartment of Radiotherapy, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang 050000, Hebei Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2617-6157
Guohui WangDepartment of Radiotherapy, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang 050000, Hebei Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0749-6059
Zhenghui MaDepartment of Radiotherapy, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang 050000, Hebei Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3487-4756
Jiayuan LiDepartment of Radiotherapy, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang 050000, Hebei Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2773-3899
Hong WangMD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas Hospital, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0382-9936
Guozhu SunDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang 050000, Hebei Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6380-8793
Xiaoying XueDepartment of Radiotherapy, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang 050000, Hebei Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4934-2904
Hebei Medical University · CNThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Although patients with grade 2 glioma have a relatively better prognosis and longer survival than those with high-grade glioma, there are still a number of patients with disappointing outcomes. In order to accurately predict the prognosis of patients, relevant risk factors were included in the analysis to establish a clinical prediction model so as to provide a basis for clinically individualized treatment. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted in patients diagnosed with grade 2 glioma. Data including clinical features, pathological type, molecular classification, neuroimaging examination, treatment, and survival were collected. The data sets were randomly assigned, with 80% of the data used for model building and 20% for validation. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to construct the model using important risk factors and present it in the form of a nomogram. The nomogram was evaluated a using Results: A total of 160 patients were enrolled in this analysis, including 128 in the training group and 32 in the validation group. In the training group, eight important risk factors including preoperative KPS, the first presenting symptom, the extent of resection, the gross tumor size, 1p19q, IDH, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy were identified to construct the model. The Conclusions: Based on the data of our center, a nomogram prediction model with eight variables has been established as an off-the-rack tool and verified its accuracy, which can guide clinical work and provide consultation for patients.

Identifiers

PMID36471886
PMCPMC9719424
OpenAlexW4309985310

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.