ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2024
Comparative analysis of the clinical effects of different thoracoscopic resection in the treatment of Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Thoracoscopic segmentectomy versus lobectomy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: efficacy, postoperative recovery, and prognosis.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Establishing a prognostic scoring system and exploring prognostic value of examined lymph node numbers for stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and a Chinese cohort.Translational cancer research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare and analyze the clinical effects of thoracoscopic lobectomy and segmentectomy in stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Method: This was a retrospective study. Eighty patients with stage I NSCLC treated in Cangzhou People's Hospital from December 2019 to January 2022 were randomly divided into the segmentectomy group and lobectomy group, with 40 cases in each group. Further comparative analysis was carried out focusing on perioperative indexes, maximum ventilation volume (MVV), forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), VAS score of postoperative pain and complications. Result: There was no significant difference in the number of dissected lymph nodes and extubation time between the two groups (p>0.05). The operation time was longer, while intraoperative blood loss was less and the stay of stay in hospital was shorter in the segmentectomy group significantly than those in the lobectomy group (p<0.05). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in MVV%, FVC% and FEV1% between the two groups before operation (p>0.05). Meanwhile, the segmentectomy group had evidently lower VAS scores at 1 d, 3 d and 5 d postoperatively than those in the lobectomy group (p<0.05). Besides, there was a much lower total incidence of complications in the segmentectomy group than that in the lobectomy group (p<0.05). Conclusion: Compared with lobectomy, thoracoscopic segmentectomy is more effective in the treatment of stage I NSCLC, with less bleeding and mild pain, which can alleviate pulmonary function injury and reduce postoperative complications that is conducive to the improved prognosis of patients.
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.