Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26584414›Full record

SynthesisJournal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A2015

Prognostic and Safety Roles in Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: A Meta-analysis.

Tiefeng Cao, Yanling Feng, Qidan Huang, Ting Wan, Jihong Liu

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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.

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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Comparative study of tumorZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Early-stage cervical cancer treatment - what's new?Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2023
    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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tiefeng CaoSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine , Guangzhou, People's Republic of China .
Yanling FengSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine , Guangzhou, People's Republic of China .
Qidan HuangSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine , Guangzhou, People's Republic of China .
Ting WanSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine , Guangzhou, People's Republic of China .
Jihong LiuSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine , Guangzhou, People's Republic of China .
Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveStudies comparing the prognostic results between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in cervical cancer reported contradictory results. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic and safety roles of LRH by pooling studies in a meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND

methodsOriginal articles were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The survival results (5-year disease-free survival [DFS], 5-year overall survival [OS], and recurrence rate [RR]), safety parameters (intra-, peri-, and postoperative complication rates and postoperative bowel or bladder recovery days), efficiency parameters (pelvic/para-aortic lymph nodes removed), and other parameters (operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital of stay) between the two approaches were reviewed.

resultsFor the 2922 cases identified, DFS, OS, and RR did not differ in balanced prognostic factors, including lymph node metastasis, Stage IIB or above, non-squamous cancer histology, grade G3, lymphovascular space invasion, tumor size ≥4 cm, and positive parametrial and vaginal margin rates. Meanwhile, LRH was associated with higher complication rates and a shorter time to the recovery of bowel or bladder function than for ARH. The number of removed pelvic or para-aortic lymph nodes did not significantly differ. Other parameters showed LRH was associated with a longer operative time, less blood loss, and a shorter length of hospital stay. The survival and prognostic results did not differ in balanced prognostic factors.

conclusionsLRH is safe and has lower operative complication rates than ARH.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansHysterectomyLaparoscopyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPostoperative ComplicationsPrognosisSurvival AnalysisTreatment OutcomeUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID26584414
PMCPMC4691653
OpenAlexW2207992951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.