ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2025
Evaluation of three lymph node staging systems for prognostic prediction in gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of lymph node ratio with perioperative outcomes and survival in patients with early-onset gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- A nomogram integrating multidimensional lymph node indicators with clinicopathological factors predicts overall survival in non-metastatic gastric cancer patients after radical gastrectomy.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Prognostic impact of lymph node ratio after suboptimal lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer: a retrospective cohort study with interaction analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- The prognostic value of log odds of positive lymph nodes in patients with resectable locally advanced gastric cancer following neoadjuvant therapy: results from the SEER database.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLymph node status is a critical prognostic factor in gastric cancer (GC), but stage migration may occur in pathological lymph nodes (pN) staging. To address this, alternative staging systems such as the positive lymph node ratio (LNR) and log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) were introduced.
aimTo assess the prognostic accuracy and stratification efficacy of three nodal staging systems in GC.
methodsA systematic review identified 12 studies, from which hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) were summarized. Sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, publication bias assessments, and quality evaluations were conducted. To enhance comparability, data from studies with identical cutoff values for pN, LNR, and LODDS were pooled. Homogeneous stratification was then applied to generate Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival curves, assessing the stratification efficacy of three staging systems.
resultsThe HRs and 95% confidence intervals for pN, LNR, and LODDS were 2.16 (1.72-2.73), 2.05 (1.65-2.55), and 3.15 (2.15-4.37), respectively, confirming all three as independent prognostic risk factors for OS. Comparative analysis of HRs demonstrated that LODDS had superior prognostic predictive power over LNR and pN. KM curves for pN (N0, N1, N2, N3a, N3b), LNR (0.1/0.2/0.5), and LODDS (-1.5/-1.0/-0.5/0) revealed significant differences (
conclusionAll three staging systems are independent prognostic factors for OS. LODDS demonstrated the highest specificity, making it especially useful for predicting outcomes, while pN was the most effective in homogeneous stratification, offering better patient differentiation. These findings highlight the complementary roles of LODDS and pN in enhancing prognostic accuracy and stratification.
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.