Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24740259›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

Robotic versus open partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhenjie Wu, Mingmin Li, Bing Liu, Chen Cai, Huamao Ye, Chen Lv, Qing Yang, Jing Sheng, Shangqing Song, Le Qu and 3 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors.

Zhenjie WuDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, P. R. China.
Mingmin LiDepartment of Radiology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, P. R. China.
Bing LiuDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, P. R. China.
Chen CaiDepartment of Special Clinic, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, P. R. China.
Huamao YeDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, P. R. China.
Chen LvDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, P. R. China.
Qing YangDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, P. R. China.
Jing ShengDepartment of Radiology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, P. R. China.
Shangqing SongDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, P. R. China.
Le QuDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, P. R. China.
Liang XiaoDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, P. R. China.
Yinghao SunDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, P. R. China.
Linhui WangDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, P. R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo critically review the currently available evidence of studies comparing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN). MATERIALS AND

methodsA comprehensive review of the literature from Pubmed, Web of Science and Scopus was performed in October 2013. All relevant studies comparing RPN with OPN were included for further screening. A cumulative meta-analysis of all comparative studies was performed and publication bias was assessed by a funnel plot.

resultsEight studies were included for the analysis, including a total of 3418 patients (757 patients in the robotic group and 2661 patients in the open group). Although RPN procedures had a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 40.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.39-67.40; p = 0.002), patients in this group benefited from a lower perioperative complication rate (19.3% for RPN and 29.5% for OPN; odds ratio [OR]: 0.53; 95%CI, 0.42-0.67; p<0.00001), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.78; 95%CI, -3.36 to -1.92; p<0.00001), less estimated blood loss(WMD: -106.83; 95%CI, -176.4 to -37.27; p = 0.003). Transfusions, conversion to radical nephrectomy, ischemia time and estimated GFR change, margin status, and overall cost were comparable between the two techniques. The main limitation of the present meta-analysis is the non-randomization of all included studies.

conclusionsRPN appears to be an efficient alternative to OPN with the advantages of a lower rate of perioperative complications, shorter length of hospital stay and less blood loss. Nevertheless, high quality prospective randomized studies with longer follow-up period are needed to confirm these findings.

Indexed as

Blood Loss, SurgicalCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansLength of StayNephrectomyOperative TimeRoboticsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24740259
PMCPMC3989253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.