SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2016
Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of 3-year follow-up outcomes.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of Survival Among Adults With Rectal Cancer Who Have Undergone Laparoscopic vs Open Surgery: A Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2018Guideline
- What to consider when designing a laparoscopic colorectal training curriculum: a review of the literature.Techniques in coloproctology · 2018Pooled it
- Short-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopic vs open rectal excision for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Pooled it
- Article
- A Cost Overview of Minimally Invasive Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Population-based Cohort in Experienced Centres.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2023Article
- Comparison of the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, open surgery, and transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: An overview of systematic reviews.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2020Review
- Long-term and Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer.Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni · 2018Article
- Outcomes of open versus laparoscopic surgery in patients with rectal cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe wished to evaluate the effectiveness of laparoscopic and open surgery for patients with rectum cancer through a meta-analysis.
methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane database until June 30, 2015, to identify eligible studies. Randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic with open surgery for rectum cancer were included. Meta-analysis was performed using the search strategy following the requirement of the Cochrane Library Handbook. Three-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were the main endpoints.
resultsEight randomized controlled trials comprising 3145 patients matched the selection criteria. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference between laparoscopic and open surgery in 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) (hazard ratio (HR)3-year OS = 0.83, 95 % CI [0.68-1.01]; P = 0.06; HR3-year DFS = 0.89, 95 % CI [0.75,1.05]; P = 0.16). No evidence of publication bias was observed.
conclusionOur meta-analysis supported the notion that based on the 3-year DFS and OS, oncological outcomes are comparable after laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.