Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22532846›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2012

Expert opinion on laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer parallels evidence from a cumulative meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Guillaume Martel, Alyson Crawford, Jeffrey S Barkun, Robin P Boushey, Craig R Ramsay, Dean A Fergusson

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for left flexure colon cancer: A propensity score matched analysis from an international cohort.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Laparoscopic Complete Mesocolic Excision for Right-Sided Colon Cancer: Analysis of Feasibility and Safety from a Single Western Center.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review.World journal of methodology · 2015
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Guillaume MartelDepartment of Surgery, Department of Epidemiology & Community Medicine, and Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. guill_martel@hotmail.com
Alyson Crawford
Jeffrey S Barkun
Robin P Boushey
Craig R Ramsay
Dean A Fergusson
Ottawa Hospital · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CAMcGill University · CAUniversity of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study sought to synthesize survival outcomes from trials of laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery, and to determine whether expert acceptance of this technology in the literature has parallel cumulative survival evidence. STUDY

designA systematic review of randomized trials was conducted. The primary outcome was survival, and meta-analysis of time-to-event data was conducted. Expert opinion in the literature (published reviews, guidelines, and textbook chapters) on the acceptability of laparoscopic colorectal cancer was graded using a 7-point scale. Pooled survival data were correlated in time with accumulating expert opinion scores.

resultsA total of 5,800 citations were screened. Of these, 39 publications pertaining to 23 individual trials were retained. As well, 414 reviews were included (28 guidelines, 30 textbook chapters, 20 systematic reviews, 336 narrative reviews). In total, 5,782 patients were randomized to laparoscopic (n = 3,031) and open (n = 2,751) colorectal surgery. Survival data were presented in 16 publications. Laparoscopic surgery was not inferior to open surgery in terms of overall survival (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.80, 1.09). Expert opinion in the literature pertaining to the oncologic acceptability of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer correlated most closely with the publication of large RCTs in 2002-2004. Although increasingly accepted since 2006, laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remained controversial.

conclusionsLaparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is non-inferior to open surgery in terms of overall survival, and has been so since 2004. The majority expert opinion in the literature has considered these two techniques to be equivalent since 2002-2004. Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has been increasingly accepted since 2006, but remains controversial. Knowledge translation efforts in this field appear to have paralleled the accumulation of clinical trial evidence.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsHumansLaparoscopyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurvival RateTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID22532846
PMCPMC3332109
OpenAlexW2009543767

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.