Comparing systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials with cohort studies: a paradigm of single-incision laparoscopic surgery.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Randomized controlled trial of single incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy with long-term follow-up.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020
   Trial
2. How surgical care is changing in the technological era.Future science OA · 2016
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  No difference in incidence of port-site hernia and chronic pain after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a nationwide prospective, matched cohort study.2015
• Comment on
  Single-incision laparoscopic surgery through the umbilicus is associated with a higher incidence of trocar-site hernia than conventional laparoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.2016
• Comment on
  Single-incision port-site herniation: meta-analysis vs. nationwide cohort study.2016

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as