ReviewInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
A comparison of surgical procedures and postoperative cares for minimally invasive laparoscopic gastrectomy and open gastrectomy in gastric cancer.
Review in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Proteomic characterization of gastric cancer response to chemotherapy and targeted therapy reveals new therapeutic strategies.Nature communications · 2022Article
- A Review of Research Progress in Multidrug-Resistance Mechanisms in Gastric Cancer.OncoTargets and therapy · 2020Review
- Recent developments and innovations in gastric cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive, laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has assumed an ever-expanding role in gastric cancer treatment. Accumulating data so far seem to suggest that LG is at least a viable alternative of conventional open gastrectomy (OG) in different contexts. However, even though reviews and meta-analyses have compared the advantages and limitations of each option, it is still controversial whether LG is a better alternative to OG, especially in advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The major goal of this study is to evaluate the readouts of LG, in comparison with OG. A literature search was performed for studies published from 2009 to 2013. Medical records of 20868 gastric cancer patients from 32 independent studies were reviewed and analyzed. All 32 studies concluded that LG is at least comparable with OG. LG is superior to OG in offering less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and lower risk of complications, although LG is probably inferior in operative time, and not different from OG in mortality. Considering the merits and the potential future technical improvement, it is reasonable to speculate that LG may eventually replace OG in most clinical contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26379823PMC4565206W2429368468What OpenQuestion holds
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.