Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26216579›Full record

SynthesisGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2016

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: an updated meta-analysis.

Yingjun Quan, Ao Huang, Min Ye, Ming Xu, Biao Zhuang, Peng Zhang, Bo Yu, Zhijun Min

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer in patients among octogenarians: a meta-analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

8 authors.

Yingjun QuanDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Shanghai, 201399, China.
Ao HuangLiver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China. surgeonhuang@yeah.net.
Min YeDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Shanghai, 201399, China.
Ming XuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Shanghai, 201399, China.
Biao ZhuangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Shanghai, 201399, China.
Peng ZhangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Shanghai, 201399, China.
Bo YuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Shanghai, 201399, China.
Zhijun MinDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Shanghai, 201399, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been used as an alternative to open gastrectomy (OG) to treat early gastric cancer. However, the use of LG for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) has been in debate.

methodsLiterature retrieval was performed by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library up to July 2014. Potential studies comparing the surgical effects between LG with OG were evaluated and data were extracted accordingly. Meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan. The pooled risk ratio and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) were calculated.

resultsOverall, 26 studies were included in this meta-analysis. LG had some advantages over OG, including shorter hospitalization (WMD, -3.63, 95 % CI, -4.66 to -2.60; P < 0.01), less blood loss (WMD, -161.37, 95 % CI, -192.55 to -130.18; P < 0.01), faster bowel recovery (WMD, -0.78, 95 % CI, -1.05 to -0.50; P < 0.01), and earlier ambulation (WMD, -0.95, 95 % CI, -1.47 to -0.44; P < 0.01). In terms of surgical and oncological safety, LG could achieve similar lymph nodes (WMD, -0.49, 95 % CI, -1.78 to 0.81; P = 0.46), a lower complication rate [odds ratio (OR), 0.71, 95 % CI, 0.59 to 0.87; P < 0.01], and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) comparable to OG.

conclusionsFor AGCs, LG appeared comparable with OG in short- and long-term results. Although more time was needed to perform LG, it had some advantages over OG in achieving faster postoperative recovery. Ongoing trials and future studies could help to clarify this controversial issue.

Indexed as

Postoperative ComplicationsGastrectomyHumansLaparoscopyNeoplasm StagingPrognosisStomach NeoplasmsAdvanced gastric cancerLaparoscopic gastrectomyMeta-analysisOpen gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID26216579

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.