SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022
Prognostic value of lymph node micrometastasis in esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in Esophageal Cancer: Current Status and Future Directions.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Review
- Novel neoadjuvant immunotherapy treatment and surveillance strategies in resectable esophageal cancer: innovation leads to improved outcomes.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Graphical modeling of causal factors associated with the postoperative survival of esophageal cancer subjects.Medical physics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Whether lymph node micrometastasis (LNM) increases the risk in esophageal cancer patients remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the prognosis value of LNM in esophageal cancer patients. Methods: Two reviewers independently searched electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, for eligible citations until February 2022. We calculated pooled estimates of the hazards ratio with a random-effects model. The certainty of evidence was determined by the Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method. A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the stability. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. We also performed subgroup analysis to explore the source of heterogeneity. Results: A total of 16 studies, with 1,652 patients, were included. The overall survival (OS) was significantly increased with LNM negativity compared with LNM positivity (HR 1.95; 95% CI, 1.53-2.49; Conclusion: LNM positivity worsens the prognosis in esophageal cancer, and the evidence for RFS is moderate. Future relevant high-quality studies are warranted to validate our results further and provide a reference for guidelines. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier (CRD42022321768).
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.