Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24488547›Full record

ReviewCurrent oncology reports2014

The contemporary role of minimally invasive esophagectomy in esophageal cancer.

Mohan K Mallipeddi, Mark W Onaitis

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current oncology reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Oncologic Resection in Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Transhiatal Esophagectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Impact of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of esophageal cancer.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery
    Observational
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mohan K MallipeddiGeneral Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC Box 3443, Durham, NC, 27710, USA, mohan.mallipeddi@duke.edu.
Mark W Onaitis
Duke Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Open surgical resection via transhiatal or transthoracic, including McKeown, access is the most viable option for curing esophageal cancer; however, the extensive nature of open surgery in both the chest and abdomen results in significant rates of morbidity and mortality. A natural response was the introduction of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and, later, endoscopic resection. In the hands of experienced surgeons, MIE can achieve equivalent or better perioperative mortality, morbidity, and oncologic outcomes as compared to open surgery. This review starts with an overview of open esophagectomy before delving into the evolving body of evidence on MIE outcomes and practices.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyEsophagoscopyEvidence-Based MedicineHumansLaparoscopyQuality of LifeRobotics

Identifiers

PMID24488547
OpenAlexW1978098918

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.