ArticleJournal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons2010
Pediatric laparoscopy: Facts and factitious claims.
Article in Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Re-pediatric laparoscopy: Facts and factitious claims.Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPediatric laparoscopy (LS) is claimed to be superior to open surgery (OS). This review questions the scientific veracity of this assertion by systematic analysis of published evidences comparing LS versus OS in infants and children. MATERIALS AND
methodsSearch of PubMed data base and the available literature on pediatric LS is analyzed.
resultsOne hundred and eight articles out of a total of 426 papers were studied in detail.
conclusionsHigh quality evidences indicate that LS is, at the best, as invasive as OS; and is at the worst, more invasive than conventional surgery. There are no high quality evidences to suggest that LS is minimally invasive, economically profitable and is associated with fewer complications than OS. Evidences are equally distributed for and against the benefits of LS regarding postoperative pain. Proof of cosmetic superiority of LS or otherwise is not available. The author concludes that pediatric laparoscopy, at the best, is simply comparable to laparotomy and its superiority over the latter could not be sustained on the basis of available scientific evidences. Benefits of laparoscopy appear to recede with younger age. Concerns are raised on the quick adoption, undue promotion and frequent misuse of laparoscopy in children.
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.