ArticleBMC cancer2026
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo determine the feasibility and efficacy of 125Iodine brachytherapy stent (IBS) for lung cancer associated with superior vena cava syndrome (SVCS).
methodsFrom May 2018 to August 2022, a retrospective analysis of 76 patients diagnosed with SVCS who underwent SVC stenting in our department. The ISB group (n = 33) underwent self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) combined with 125Iodine seed strand implantation (called ISS), while the conventional stent group (n = 43) underwent SEMS implantation alone. The primary endpoints were technical success, clinical success, complications, stent patency, Karnofsky score; secondary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
resultsThere was a significant difference in the stent patency (93.93% vs. 76.74% at 4 months) and Karnofsky scores [(81.52 ± 7.95) vs. (77.44 ± 7.90) at 1 month, all P < 0.05] between the ISB and conventional stent groups (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed between two groups in technical success (100% vs. 100%), clinical success (96.97% vs. 93.02%), complication rates (24.24% vs. 11.63%), median PFS (3.40 vs. 3.80 months), or median OS (20.40 vs. 20.40 months) (P > 0.05).
conclusionThe ISB can effectively relieve SVCS, improve functional status, and prolong stent patency, while showing no significance on PFS and OS. TRIAL REGISTRY: Ethics Committee of Scientific Research and Clinical Trial, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University. Unique identifying number: Ethics Approval Number: 2023ky0106. Date of registration: 2023.01.12.
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.