Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25005014›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2015

Systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and efficacy of laparoscopic resection for gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the stomach.

Ke Chen, Yu-Cheng Zhou, Yi-Ping Mou, Xiao-Wu Xu, Wei-Wei Jin, Harsha Ajoodhea

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03716089 (Prospective Controlled Clinical Trial for Comparison of Tumor Efficacy Safety in Laparoscopic Resection of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors Between Favorable and Unfavorable Site（FUGES-016）), which is not on this map. Cited by 42 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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.

NCT03716089 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Prospective Controlled Clinical Trial for Comparison of Tumor Efficacy Safety in Laparoscopic Resection of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors Between Favorable and Unfavorable Site（FUGES-016）

TypeobservationalSponsorFujian Medical UniversityRan2018 to 2027Enrolled250ConditionsGIST of Stomach, Gastric Cancer, Surgery, ComplicationArmsLaparoscopic resection
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Duration-dependent effects of adjuvant imatinib on recurrence-free and overall survival after resection of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

6 authors.

Ke ChenDepartment of General Surgery, Institute of Micro-invasive Surgery, School of Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University, 3 East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, China.
Yu-Cheng Zhou
Yi-Ping Mou
Xiao-Wu Xu
Wei-Wei Jin
Harsha Ajoodhea

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic resection for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) of the stomach with systematic review and meta-analysis.

methodsThe literature database before March, 2014 was extensively searched to retrieve the comparative studies of laparoscopic (LAP) and open resection (OPEN) for GISTs with a relevance of study goal. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were formulated. After a quality evaluation, the data were extracted. The Cochrane collaboration RevMan5.1 version software was used for meta-analysis.

resultsThere are nineteen studies meeting the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The total sample size of these studies was 1,060 cases. The operation time was similar between the two groups [weighted mean difference (WMD) -7.20 min, 95 % confidence interval (CI) -25.65 to 11.25, P = 0.44)]. Compared to OPEN, however, LAP experienced less blood loss (WMD -54.21 ml, 95 % CI -82.65 to -25.77, P < 0.01), earlier time to flatus (WMD -1.34 days, 95 % CI -1.62 to -1.06, P < 0.01) and oral diet (WMD -1.80 days, 95 % CI -2.18 to -1.42, P < 0.01), shorter hospital stay (WMD -3.68 days, 95 % CI -4.52 to -2.85, P < 0.01) and decrease in overall complications [relative risk (RR) 0.51, 95 % CI 0.32-0.80, P < 0.01)]. In addition, the long-term follow-up result shows that there is no significant difference in the two groups of patients.

conclusionLaparoscopic resection for gastric GISTs is a safe and feasible procedure with less blood loss, less overall complications and quicker recovery. The long-term survival situation of patients mainly depends on the tumor itself risk, and laparoscopic surgery will not increase the risks of tumor relapse and metastasis.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyFemaleGastrectomyGastrointestinal Stromal TumorsHumansLength of StayMaleNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalStomach NeoplasmsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID25005014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.