Reviewing FIGO 2018 cervical cancer staging.

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.

1. Multiparametric MRI-based radiomics for preoperative prediction of parametrial invasion in early-stage cervical cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025
   Article
2. Construction and validation of prognostic models for young cervical cancer patients: age stratification based on restricted cubic splines.Scientific reports · 2024
   Article
3. Microbiome profiling and Co-metabolism pathway analysis in cervical cancer patients with acute radiation enteritis.Heliyon · 2024
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Rationality of FIGO 2018 IIIC restaging of cervical cancer according to local tumor size: A cohort study.2023

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as