ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2026
The efficacy and predictive value of
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe sought to evaluate the efficacy and predictive value of
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from 663 melanoma patients who underwent SLNB in our center between February 2009 and March 2019. Participants enrolled in the study included 374 AM and 128 cutaneous melanoma (CM) patients, who received
resultsSLNs were successfully imaged using SPECT-CT and harvested from all 374 AM and 128 CM patients. Of these study participants, 19 AM and 9 CM patients were diagnosed as false negative (FN) SLN corresponding to a FN rate of 17.9% and 20.5%, respectively. The rate of positive SLN was 23.3% and 27.3% (P = 0.353) in AM and CM, respectively. No predictive factors were discovered for FN. The T stage was found to be a potential risk factor for SLNB-positive (OR: 1.311; 95% CI: 1.051-1.635; P = 0.016) cases in AM patients, whereas no significant differences were observed in CM patients (P > 0.05). Cox-regression multiple factor analysis revealed that SLNB positivity was an independent risk factor for DFS and OS in AM patients.
conclusion
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.