ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Comparison of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after thoracoscopic lobar and sublobar resections for non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Surgical resection of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is associated with prolonged survival. However, there is a paucity of research investigating the long-term effects of the extent of lung resection on patients' quality of life. The aim of the study was to investigate the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after thoracoscopic anatomic lung resection (lobar and sublobar) for NSCLC. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected PROMs following thoracoscopic anatomic lung resection (lobar and sublobar) for NSCLC stages I-IIA. The primary endpoint was the change in physical function scores at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-surgery. Secondary endpoints included changes in patient-reported shortness of breath and coughing scores post-surgery between the two resection types. Results: A total of 57 patients were included in this study, with 26 patients undergoing lobar resection and 31 undergoing sublobar resection. The mean age was 71.4±8.3 years in the lobar resection group and 70.7±10.5 years in the sublobar resection group (P=0.77). There were no significant differences in the preoperative lung function tests between the two groups [mean forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) was 88%±17.1% in the lobar group and 83.4%±19.3% in the sublobar group, P=0.37]. The mean baseline physical functioning scores were 78±23 in the lobar group and 73±30 in the sublobar group (P=0.44). Changes in physical functioning scores did not differ significantly between lobar and sublobar resection groups (P=0.76) during the study period and up to 2 years after the surgery. Additionally, the type of lung resection had no effect on symptom scores for shortness of breath (P=0.24) or coughing (P=0.73). Conclusions: Patient-reported physical function, shortness of breath, and coughing did not significantly change from 3 months to 2 years following thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection in patients with NSCLC. The type of lung resection (lobar or sublobar) also had no significant effect on these outcomes.
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.