ArticleJTCVS open2023
Is wedge a dirty word? Demographic and facility-level variables associated with high-quality wedge resection.
Article in JTCVS open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is Robotic-Assisted Surgery Associated With Receipt of Guideline-Directed Lymph Node Sampling in Wedge Resection for Early-Stage NSCLC?Annals of thoracic surgery short reports · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Although sublobar resections have gained traction, wedge resections vary widely in quality. We seek to characterize the demographic and facility-level variables associated with high-quality wedge resections. Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried from 2010 to 2018. Patients with T1/T2 N0 M0 non-small cell lung cancer 2 cm or less who underwent wedge resection without neoadjuvant therapy were included. A wedge resection with no nodes sampled or with positive margins was categorized as a low-quality wedge. A wedge resection with 4 or more nodes sampled and negative margins was categorized as a high-quality wedge. Facility-specific variables were investigated via quartile analysis based on the overall volume and proportion of high-quality wedge or low-quality wedge resections performed. Results: A total of 21,742 patients met inclusion criteria, 6390 (29.4%) of whom received a high-quality wedge resection. Factors associated with high-quality wedge resection included treatment at an academic center (3005 [47.0%] vs low-quality wedge 6279 [40.9%]; Conclusions: High-quality wedge resections are associated with improved 5-year survival when compared with low-quality wedge resections. By volume, high-quality wedge and low-quality wedge resections cluster to a minority of facilities, many of which overlap. There is discordance between best practice guidelines and current practice patterns that warrants additional study.
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.