Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24424713›Full record

SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2014

Laparoscopic versus open surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hao Chen, Liying Zhao, Shengli An, Jiaming Wu, Zhenhong Zou, Hao Liu, Guoxin Li

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review.World journal of methodology · 2015
    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

7 authors.

Hao ChenDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, No.1838, North Guangzhou Avenue, Guangzhou, 510515, China.
Liying Zhao
Shengli An
Jiaming Wu
Zhenhong Zou
Hao Liu
Guoxin Li

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the short-term and pathological outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LS) versus open surgery (OS) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) for rectal cancer.

methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Chinese Biomedicine Literature databases were searched for eligible studies published up to July 2013. The rates of postoperative complication, positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), and the number of lymph nodes harvested were evaluated.

resultsThree randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five non-RCTs enrolling 953 patients were included. Compared to OS, LS had similar rate of postoperative complication [odds ratio (OR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.60 to 1.22], comparable rate of positive CRM (OR 0.41; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.02), and smaller number of lymph nodes (weighted mean difference -0.8; 95% CI, -1.1 to -0.5). LS also had significantly less blood loss, faster bowel movement recovery, and shorter postoperative hospitalization than those of OS.

conclusionLS is associated with favorable short-term benefits, similar postoperative complication rate, and comparable pathological outcomes for rectal cancer after NCRT compared to OS despite a slight difference in the number of lymph nodes. Additional high-quality studies are needed to validate long-term outcomes of LS following NCRT.

Indexed as

Chemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantLaparoscopyBlood Loss, SurgicalDefecationHumansLength of StayLymph NodesNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm, ResidualOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRecovery of FunctionRectal Neoplasms

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.