Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23652354›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgery2013

Extended lymphadenectomy in colon cancer is debatable.

Jamie Murphy, Tonia Young-Fadok

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

2 authors.

Jamie MurphyDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 5777 E. Mayo Boulevard, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA. jamie.murphy@qmul.ac.uk
Tonia Young-Fadok

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extended lymphadenectomy has gained considerable attention as an adjunct to conventional colon cancer surgery with the hope that it may potentially decrease local recurrence rates and improve cancer-specific outcome measures. Despite the enthusiasm surrounding these techniques, it is difficult to establish any additional survival benefit associated with more comprehensive lymphadenectomy strategies when these are performed in addition to conventional colon cancer surgery. Furthermore, these techniques remain unproven by large randomized clinical trials. The appropriate indications for performing extended lymphadenectomy also remain unclear, and there is a lack of standardization with regard to surgical technique. Moreover, there are a number of confounding factors that frequently receive little attention when oncological outcome measures are reported following extended lymphadenectomy in the setting of colon cancer. The purpose of this review is to outline these confounding issues and discuss their impact on reports describing cancer-specific outcome measures following the use of extended lymphadenectomy techniques. Furthermore, this review proposes that in light of the available published evidence, the role of radical lymphadenectomy is currently unproven, with large randomized clinical trials required in the future to determine whether there is a survival benefit for colon cancer patients.

Indexed as

ColectomyColonic NeoplasmsHumansLymph Node ExcisionNeoplasm Metastasis

Identifiers

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.