SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024
The prognostic values of lymph node ratio for gynecological cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- Predictive Features Specific to FIGO IIIA1 Ovarian Cancer: What Drives Prognosis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Article
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
Background: The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between the lymph node ratio (LNR) and the prognostic values of gynecological cancer. Materials and methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Central Cochrane Library were used to search for studies on LNR and gynecological cancer published before 18 April 2024. The effect measure for meta-analysis of primary outcomes was the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Pooled HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random- or fixed-effects models. Sensitivity analysis was applied to evaluate the robustness of the results. The Results: A total of 34 studies with 23,202 cases were included in this meta-analysis. A meta-analysis found that higher LNR was associated with worse OS (HR = 2.42, 95% CI: 2.07-2.83; Conclusion: We observed a clear association between higher LNR and poorer prognosis in our study of patients with gynecological cancer. Further prospective studies are warranted to determine the optimal LNR and whether LNR can guide adjuvant therapy use in gynecological cancer. It is essential to conduct further prospective studies to establish the optimal LNR threshold, determine the minimum threshold of lymph node removal, and investigate whether LNR can serve as a reliable marker for guiding adjuvant therapy choices in gynecological cancer. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, CRD42024541187.
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.