Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23183871›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2013

Laparoscopy for rectal cancer reduces short-term mortality and morbidity: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Alberto Arezzo, Roberto Passera, Gitana Scozzari, Mauro Verra, Mario Morino

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02350166 (Short-term Effects of Laparoscopic-assisted Small-incision Surgery Versus Conventional Laparotomy in Treatment of Resectable Colorectal Liver Metastasis), which is not on this map. Cited by 69 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
5.9field-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.

NCT02350166 phase3unknown statusnot on this map

Short-term Effects of Laparoscopic-assisted Small-incision Surgery Versus Conventional Laparotomy in Treatment of Resectable Colorectal Liver Metastasis

TypeinterventionalSponsorWest China HospitalRan2013 to 2016Enrolled40ConditionsColorectal CancerArmslaparoscopic surgery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2018
    Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Guideline
  12. 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
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alberto ArezzoDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. alberto.arezzo@mac.com
Roberto Passera
Gitana Scozzari
Mauro Verra
Mario Morino
University of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough definitive long-term results are not yet available, the global safety of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer treatment remains controversial. We evaluated differences in the safety of laparoscopic rectal resection versus open surgery for cancer.

methodsA systematic review from 2000 to 2011 was performed searching the Medline and Embase databases (prospero registration CRD42012002406). We included randomized and prospective controlled clinical studies comparing laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer. Primary end points were 30-day mortality and overall morbidity. Then a meta-analysis was conducted by a fixed-effect model, performing a sensitivity analysis by a random-effect model. Relative risk (RR) was used as an indicator of treatment effect; a RR of less than 1.0 was in favor of laparoscopy. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and heterogeneity by the I (2) test and subgroup analysis on surgical and medical complications.

resultsTwenty-three studies, representing 4,539 patients, met the inclusion criteria; eight were randomized for a total of 1,746 patients. Mortality was observed in 1.0 % of patients in the laparoscopic group and in 2.4 % of patients in the open group. The overall RR was 0.46 (95 % confidence interval 0.21-0.99, p = 0.048). The raw incidence of overall complications was lower in the laparoscopic group (31.8 %) compared to the open group (35.4 %). The overall RR was 0.83 (95 % confidence interval 0.76-0.91, p < 0.001).

conclusionsOn the basis of evidence of both randomized and prospective controlled series, mortality and morbidity RR, including subgroup analysis, were significantly lower after laparoscopic compared to open surgery.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyAnastomotic LeakBlood Loss, SurgicalBlood TransfusionCarcinomaControlled Clinical Trials as TopicEndpoint DeterminationFemaleHumansLaparotomyLength of StayMaleModels, TheoreticalPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PeriodProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID23183871
OpenAlexW2131145953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.