ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2024
Controversies and Advances in the Personalized Surgical Treatment of Cervical Cancer.
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2024. 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.
- Integrating neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio into cervical cancer management: implications for prognostic assessment and therapeutic strategies - a narrative review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical cancer represents a global health issue as it is mostly encountered in women of reproductive age, while at the same time, survival outcomes seem to have remained constant during the last two decades. The need to implement fertility-sparing strategies as well as to decrease the morbidity that accompanies radical treatment has been extensively studied. During the last decade, several randomized clinical trials have been released, resulting in significant advances in the surgical treatment of early-stage disease. At the same time, evidence about the surgical treatment of advanced-stage disease as well as recurrent disease has gradually appeared and seems to be promising, thus leading the point forward towards personalized medicine that will remove the surgical barriers that seem concrete in our era. Nevertheless, the discrepancies in perioperative morbidity and survival outcomes that were observed among published studies raise several questions. In the present article, we chose to review the gray fields in the surgical treatment of early-stage and advanced-stage cervical cancer. Studies that are based on strong evidence that support current clinical practice are compared to smaller cohorts that present novel data that may form the basis for future research, and issues that remain poorly explored are discussed in an effort to help establish a consensus for future research development.
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.