Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38913637›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2024

The risk for subsequent primary lung cancer after cervical carcinoma: A quantitative analysis based on 864,627 cases.

Sheng Gong, Gang Li, Dan Li, Yu Liu, Banggui Wu

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sheng GongDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The Public Health Clinical Center of Chengdu, Chengdu, P.R. China.
Gang LiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The Public Health Clinical Center of Chengdu, Chengdu, P.R. China.
Dan LiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The Public Health Clinical Center of Chengdu, Chengdu, P.R. China.
Yu LiuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The Public Health Clinical Center of Chengdu, Chengdu, P.R. China.
Banggui WuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The Public Health Clinical Center of Chengdu, Chengdu, P.R. China.ORCID 0009-0009-3713-9405

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the risk of developing subsequent primary lung cancer among cervical cancer patients and the general population.

methodsSeveral databases were searched from inception to April 25, 2023. The standard incidence ratios (SIRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined to identify the risk for second primary lung cancer after cervical carcinoma. Subgroup analyses based on the follow-up period, age, degree of malignancy and source of SIR were conducted. All the statistical analyses were performed with STATA 15.0 software.

resultsA total of 22 retrospective studies involving 864,627 participants were included. The pooled results demonstrated that cervical cancer patients had a significantly greater risk for lung cancer than did the general population (SIR = 2.63, 95% CI: 2.37-2.91, P<0.001). Furthermore, subgroup analyses stratified by follow-up period (<5 years and ≥5 years), age (≤50 years and <50 years), and degree of malignancy (invasive and in situ) also revealed an increased risk of developing lung cancer among cervical carcinoma patients.

conclusionCervical cancer patients are more likely to develop subsequent primary lung cancer than the general population, regardless of age, follow-up time or degree of malignancy. However, more high-quality prospective studies are still needed to verify our findings.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedFemaleHumansIncidenceMiddle AgedNeoplasms, Second PrimaryRetrospective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID38913637
PMCPMC11195986

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.