Extension usage examples:
Here's how our browser extension sees the article:
局部晚期食管癌新辅助免疫治疗和化疗联合治疗后食管切除术的安全性和可行性：倾向评分匹配 - PubMed
Source: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Article summary:
1. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and feasibility of esophagectomy after neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemotherapy (NICT) for locally advanced esophageal cancer.
2. A retrospective review was conducted on 95 patients who received NICT (n=30) or chemotherapy alone (NCT, n=3) between 1995 and 2021 at the institution.
3. The primary endpoint was 30-day complications, while secondary endpoints included surgery interval, surgery time, postoperative chest drainage, chest drainage tube stay, readmission rate within <> days, and mortality rate within <> days. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce bias from potential confounders.
Article analysis:
The article is generally reliable in terms of its methodology and results. The authors conducted a retrospective review of 95 patients who received either neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemotherapy (NICT) or chemotherapy alone (NCT). The primary endpoint was 30-day complications, while secondary endpoints included surgery interval, surgery time, postoperative chest drainage, chest drainage tube stay, readmission rate within <> days, and mortality rate within <> days. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce bias from potential confounders. The results showed that all patients successfully completed neoadjuvant therapy and underwent McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy with negative margins. After PSM for clinical staging matching, both groups had similar demographic characteristics such as age, gender, BMI etc., as well as similar CCI index scores and other complications/major complications rates. There were also no significant differences in terms of surgical time, intraoperative blood loss amount, chest drainage tube stay amount etc., between the two groups. Additionally the 30-day mortality rate and readmission rates were similar between the two groups as well.
In terms of trustworthiness and reliability of the article there are some points to consider such as whether possible risks are noted or not presenting both sides equally which could be explored further in future studies. Additionally it would be beneficial to explore counterarguments more thoroughly in order to provide a more comprehensive overview of the topic discussed in this article.