Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18843688›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008

Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for FIGO Stage I ovarian cancer.

Lídia R F Medeiros, Daniela D Rosa, Mary C Bozzetti, Maria Ines Rosa, Maria I Edelweiss, Airton T Stein, Alice Zelmanowicz, Anaelena B Ethur, Roselaine R Zanini

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for FIGO stage I ovarian cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Laparoscopic surgical staging of early ovarian cancer.Reviews in obstetrics & gynecology · 2011
    Article
  10. Epithelial ovarian carcinoma: current evidences and future perspectives in the first-line setting.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2010
    Review
  11. Criteria for selection of laparoscopy for women with adnexal mass.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Lídia R F MedeirosSocial Medicine/Epidemiology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Jose de Alencar 1244, 1009 Menino Deus, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, 90880-480. lidia.rosi@terra.com.br
Daniela D Rosa
Mary C Bozzetti
Maria Ines Rosa
Maria I Edelweiss
Airton T Stein
Alice Zelmanowicz
Anaelena B Ethur
Roselaine R Zanini
University of Rio Grande and Rio Grande Community College · USUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul · BRGrupo Hospitalar Conceição · BRSanta Casa Hospital · BRUniversidade do Extremo Sul Catarinense · BRUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the past ten years laparoscopy has become an increasingly common approach for the surgical removal of early stage ovarian tumours. There remains uncertainty about the value of this intervention. This review has been undertaken to assess the available evidence of the benefits and harms of laparoscopic surgery for the management of early stage ovarian cancer compared to laparotomy.

objectivesTo evaluate the benefits and harms of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of FIGO stage I ovarian cancer (stages Ia, Ib and Ic) when compared with laparotomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2007, MEDLINE (January 1990 to November 2007), EMBASE (1990 to November 2007), LILACS (1990 to November 2007), BIOLOGICAL ABSTRACTS (1990 to November 2007) and Cancerlit (1990 to November 2007). We also searched our own publication archives, based on prospective handsearching of relevant journals from November 2007. Reference lists of identified studies, gynaecological cancer handbooks and conference abstract were also scanned. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies including patients with histologically proven stage I ovarian cancer according to the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO).Studies comparing laparoscopic surgery with laparotomy for early stage ovarian cancer were only available from 1990. It was anticipated that a very small number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted studying the management of early stage ovarian cancer. Therefore, non-randomised comparative studies, cohort studies and case-controls studies, but not studies with historical controls, were also considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction was performed independently by five review authors (LRM, DDR, MIR, MCB and MIE) who assessed study quality and quality of extracted data. Extracted data included trial characteristics, characteristics of the study participants, interventions and outcomes. The quality of non RCTs was assessed using appropriate quality evaluations tools from the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) and from the Newcastle-Ottawa tool for observational studies (NOS). MAIN

resultsNo RCTs were identified. Three observational studies were identified. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThis review has found no evidence to help quantify the value of laparoscopy for the management of early stage ovarian cancer as routine clinical practice.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyLaparotomyFemaleHumansOvarian Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID18843688
OpenAlexW4237027175

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.