Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38173431›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2023

Intensive follow-up

Li-Li Cui, Shi-Qi Cui, Zhong Qu, Zhen-Qing Ren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Li-Li CuiDepartment of Operating Room, Jiangsu Taizhou People's Hospital, Taizhou 225300, Jiangsu Province, China.
Shi-Qi CuiDepartment of Oncology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310020, Zhejiang Province, China.
Zhong QuDepartment of Endoscopy Center, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310020, Zhejiang Province, China.
Zhen-Qing RenDepartment of Nursing, Jiangsu Taizhou People's Hospital, Taizhou 225300, Jiangsu Province, China. 635818285@qq.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe frequency and content of follow-up strategies remain controversial for colorectal cancer (CRC), and scheduled follow-ups have limited value.

aimTo compare intensive and conventional follow-up strategies for the prognosis of non-metastatic CRC treated with curative intent using a meta-analysis.

methodsPubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception until April 2023. The Cochrane risk of bias was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The hazard ratio, relative risk, and 95% confidence interval were used to calculate survival and categorical data, and pooled analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Additional exploratory analyses were performed for sensitivity, subgroups, and publication bias.

resultsEighteen RCTs involving 8533 patients with CRC were selected for the final analysis. Intensive follow-up may be superior to conventional follow-up in improving overall survival, but this difference was not statistically significant. Moreover, intensive follow-up was associated with an increased incidence of salvage surgery compared to conventional follow-up. In addition, there was no significant difference in the risk of recurrence between intensive and conventional follow-up strategies, whereas intensive follow-up was associated with a reduced risk of interval recurrence compared to conventional follow-up. Finally, the effects of intensive and conventional follow-up strategies differed when stratified by tumor location and follow-up duration.

conclusionIntensive follow-up may have a beneficial effect on the overall survival of patients with non-metastatic CRC treated with curative intent.

Indexed as

Colorectal cancerConventional follow-upCurative intentIntensive follow-upMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID38173431
PMCPMC10758651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.