Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25872891›Full record

SynthesisJournal of gynecologic oncology2015

Conventional versus nerve-sparing radical surgery for cervical cancer: a meta-analysis.

Hee Seung Kim, Keewon Kim, Seung Bum Ryoo, Joung Hwa Seo, Sang Youn Kim, Ji Won Park, Min A Kim, Kyoung Sup Hong, Chang Wook Jeong, Yong Sang Song and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02986568 (Cohort Study for Comparing the Efficacy Between the Standard Treatment and Fusion Ontogenetic Surgery for Gynecologic Cancers), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

NCT02986568 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Cohort Study for Comparing the Efficacy Between the Standard Treatment and Fusion Ontogenetic Surgery for Gynecologic Cancers (FUSION Trial IV)

TypeinterventionalSponsorSeoul National University HospitalRan2016 to 2025Enrolled380ConditionsCervical Cancer, Uterine CancerArmsCervical cancer, Uterine cancer, Cervical cancer, pelvic sidewall invasion, Non-cervical cancer, pelvic sidewall invasion
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator in Laparoscopic Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy: A Pilot Study.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2016
    Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Surgery for cervical cancer: consensus & controversies.The Indian journal of medical research · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Quality of life among survivors of early-stage cervical cancer in Taiwan: an exploration of treatment modality differences.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2017
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hee Seung KimCancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Keewon KimDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Seung Bum RyooDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Joung Hwa SeoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Sang Youn KimDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ji Won ParkDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Min A KimDepartment of Pathology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Kyoung Sup HongDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Chang Wook JeongDepartment of Urology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Yong Sang SongCancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.; Major in Biomodulation, World Class University, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. yssong@snu.ac.kr.
FUSION Study Group
Seoul National University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAlthough nerve-sparing radical surgery (NSRS) is an emerging technique for reducing surgery-related dysfunctions, its efficacy is controversial in patients with cervical cancer. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes, and urinary, anorectal, and sexual dysfunctions between conventional radical surgery (CRS) and NSRS.

methodsAfter searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, two randomized controlled trials, seven prospective and eleven retrospective cohort studies were included with 2,253 patients from January 2000 to February 2014. We performed crude analyses and then conducted subgroup analyses according to study design, quality of study, surgical approach, radicality, and adjustment for potential confounding factors.

resultsCrude analyses showed decreases in blood loss, hospital stay, frequency of intraoperative complications, length of the resected vagina, duration of postoperative catheterization (DPC), urinary frequency, and abnormal sensation in NSRS, whereas there were no significant differences in other clinical parameters and dysfunctions between CRS and NSRS. In subgroup analyses, operative time was longer (standardized difference in means, 0.948; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.642 to 1.253), while intraoperative complications were less common (odds ratio, 0.147; 95% CI, 0.035 to 0.621) in NSRS. Furthermore, subgroup analyses showed that DPC was shorter, urinary incontinence or frequency, and constipation were less frequent in NSRS without adverse effects on survival and sexual functions.

conclusionNSRS may not affect prognosis and sexual dysfunctions in patients with cervical cancer, whereas it may decrease intraoperative complications, and urinary and anorectal dysfunctions despite long operative time and short length of the resected vagina when compared with CRS.

Indexed as

Organ Sparing TreatmentsConstipationFemaleHumansHysterectomyIntraoperative ComplicationsPelvisRectumSexual Dysfunction, PhysiologicalUrinary BladderUrinary RetentionUterine Cervical NeoplasmsUterusVaginaHysterectomyIntraoperative ComplicationsMeta-AnalysisRadical SurgeryUrinary RetentionUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID25872891
PMCPMC4397225
OpenAlexW2021244909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.