Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24497188›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014

Exenterative surgery for recurrent gynaecological malignancies.

Christine Ang, Andrew Bryant, Desmond P J Barton, Christophe Pomel, Raj Naik

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.2field-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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Evaluation of survival and mortality in pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies: a systematic review, meta-analyses, and meta-regression study.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Perforator flaps for vulvar reconstruction: basic principles.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Christine AngNorthern Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Sheriff Hill, Gateshead, UK, NE9 6SX.
Andrew Bryant
Desmond P J Barton
Christophe Pomel
Raj Naik
Queen Elizabeth Hospital · GBCentre Jean Perrin · FRNewcastle University · GBRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. Gynaecological cancers (i.e. cancers affecting the ovaries, uterus, cervix, vulva and vagina) are among the most common cancers in women. Unfortunately, given the nature of the disease, cancer can recur or progress in some patients. Although the management of early-stage cancers is relatively straightforward, with lower associated morbidity and mortality, the surgical management of advanced and recurrent cancers (including persistent or progressive cancers) is significantly more complicated, often requiring very extensive procedures. Pelvic exenterative surgery involves removal of some or all of the pelvic organs. Exenterative surgery for persistent or recurrent cancer after initial treatment is difficult and is usually associated with significant perioperative morbidity and mortality. However, it provides women with a chance of cure that otherwise may not be possible. In carefully selected patients, it may also have a place in palliation of symptoms. The biology of recurrent ovarian cancer differs from that of other gynaecological cancers; it is often responsive to chemotherapy and is not included in this review.

objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of exenterative surgery versus other treatment modalities for women with recurrent gynaecological cancer, excluding recurrent ovarian cancer (this is covered in a separate review). SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE up to February 2013. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of clinical guidelines and review articles and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised studies with concurrent comparison groups that included multivariate analyses of exenterative surgery versus medical management in women with recurrent gynaecological malignancies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. No studies were found; therefore no data were analysed. MAIN

resultsThe search strategy identified 1311 unique references, of which seven were retrieved in full, as they appeared to be potentially relevant on the basis of title and abstract. However, all were excluded, as they did not meet the inclusion criteria of the review. AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe found no evidence to inform decisions about exenterative surgery for women with recurrent cervical, endometrial, vaginal or vulvar malignancies. Ideally, a large RCT or, at the very least, well-designed non-randomised studies that use multivariate analysis to adjust for baseline imbalances are needed to compare exenterative surgery versus medical management, including palliative care.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleGenital Neoplasms, FemaleHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPelvic Exenteration

Identifiers

PMID24497188
PMCPMC6457731
OpenAlexW1526870057

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.