Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21557014›Full record

SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2011

A meta-analysis of the short- and long-term results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopy-assisted and conventional open surgery for rectal cancer.

Hiroshi Ohtani, Yutaka Tamamori, Takashi Azuma, Yoshihiro Mori, Yukio Nishiguchi, Kiyoshi Maeda, Kosei Hirakawa

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of eight studies.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2015
    Pooled it
  4. Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Meta-analysis of Robot-assistedIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
    Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Evolution of Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2020
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Sexual dysfunction following rectal cancer surgery.International journal of colorectal disease · 2017
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hiroshi OhtaniDepartment of Surgery, Osaka City Sumiyoshi Hospital, Suminoe-ku, Osaka, 559-0012, Japan. m5051923@msic.med.osaka-cu.ac.jp
Yutaka Tamamori
Takashi Azuma
Yoshihiro Mori
Yukio Nishiguchi
Kiyoshi Maeda
Kosei Hirakawa
Osaka City University · JPOsaka City General Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the short- and long-term results of laparoscopy-assisted and open rectal surgery for the treatment of patients with rectal cancer.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register for relevant papers published between January 1990 and April 2011 by using the search terms "laparoscopy," "laparoscopy assisted," "surgery," "rectal cancer," and "randomized controlled trials." We analyzed outcomes over short- and long-term periods.

resultsWe identified 12 papers reporting results from randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopic surgery with open surgery for rectal cancer. Our meta-analysis included 2,095 patients with rectal cancer; 1,096 had undergone laparoscopic surgery, and 999 had undergone open surgery. In the short-term period, 13 outcome variables were examined. In the long-term period, eight oncologic variables, as well as late morbidity, urinary function, and sexual function were analyzed. Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer was associated with a reduction in intraoperative blood loss and the number of transfused patients, earlier resumption of oral intake, and a shorter duration of hospital stay over the short-term, but with similar short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes compared to conventional open surgery.

conclusionsLaparoscopic surgery may be an acceptable alternative treatment option to conventional open surgery for rectal cancer.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalBlood Loss, SurgicalBlood TransfusionDisease-Free SurvivalHumansLength of StayNeoplasm MetastasisQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRectal NeoplasmsTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID21557014
OpenAlexW3027909071

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.