Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25068955›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

Efficacy evaluation of subtotal and total gastrectomies in robotic surgery for gastric cancer compared with that in open and laparoscopic resections: a meta-analysis.

Liang Zong, Yasuyuki Seto, Susumu Aikou, Takamasa Takahashi

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
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. It is linked to trial NCT02413476 (Compared With Robotic-assisted and Laparoscopic-assisted Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer on Surgical,Clinical and Oncological Outcomes), which is not on this map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT02413476 phase2 / phase3unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

Compared With Robotic-assisted and Laparoscopic-assisted Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer on Surgical,Clinical and Oncological Outcomes

TypeinterventionalSponsorwei boRan2015 to 2018Enrolled120ConditionsGastric CancerArmsRobotic-assisted Gastrectomy(RAG), Laparoscopic-assisted Gastrectomy(LAG)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Robotic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a European perspective.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2019
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2018
    Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Liang ZongDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yasuyuki SetoDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Susumu AikouDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Takamasa TakahashiDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.
The University of Tokyo · JPNagoya University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposesRobotic gastrectomy (RG), as an innovation of minimally invasive surgical method, is developing rapidly for gastric cancer. But there is still no consensus on its comparative merit in either subtotal or total gastrectomy compared with laparoscopic and open resections.

methodsLiterature searches of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were performed. We combined the data of four studies for RG versus open gastrectomy (OG), and 11 studies for robotic RG versus laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Moreover, subgroup analyses of subtotal and total gastrectomies were performed in both RG vs. OG and RG vs. LG.

resultsTotally 12 studies involving 8493 patients met the criteria. RG, similar with LG, significantly reduced the intraoperative blood loss than OG. But the duration of surgery is longer in RG than in both OG and LG. The number of lymph nodes retrieved in RG was close to that in OG and LG (WMD = -0.78 and 95% CI, -2.15-0.59; WMD = 0.63 and 95% CI, -2.24-3.51). And RG did not increase morbidity and mortality in comparison with OG and LG (OR = 0.92 and 95% CI, 0.69-1.23; OR = 0.72 and 95% CI, 0.25-2.06) and (OR = 1.06 and 95% CI, 0.84-1.34; OR = 1.55 and 95% CI, 0.49-4.94). Moreover, subgroup analysis of subtotal and total gastrectomies in both RG vs. OG and RG vs. LG revealed that the scope of surgical dissection was not a positive factor to influence the comparative results of RG vs. OG or LG in surgery time, blood loss, hospital stay, lymph node harvest, morbidity, and mortality.

conclusionsThis meta-analysis highlights that robotic gastrectomy may be a technically feasible alternative for gastric cancer because of its affirmative role in both subtotal and total gastrectomies compared with laparoscopic and open resections.

Indexed as

Feasibility StudiesGastrectomyHumansLaparoscopyReproducibility of ResultsRobotic Surgical ProceduresStomach NeoplasmsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID25068955
PMCPMC4113385
OpenAlexW2009387289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.