Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27280069›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2016

Long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic nephroureterectomy versus open nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Su Zhang, You Luo, Cheng Wang, Sheng-Jun Fu, Li Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Su ZhangDepartment of Urology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital , Lan Zhou , China.
You LuoDepartment of Urology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital , Lan Zhou , China.
Cheng WangDepartment of Urology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital , Lan Zhou , China.
Sheng-Jun FuDepartment of Urology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital , Lan Zhou , China.
Li YangDepartment of Urology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital , Lan Zhou , China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background. Several factors have been validated as predictors of disease recurrence in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. However, the oncological outcomes between different surgical approaches (open nephroureterectomy versus laparoscopic nephroureterectomy, ONU vs LNU) remain controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the oncological outcomes associated with different surgical approaches. Methods. We conducted an electronic search of the PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge and Cochrane Library electronic databases through November 2015, screened the retrieved references, collected and evaluated the relevant information. We extracted and synthesized the corresponding hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using Stata 13. Results. Twenty-one observational studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed no differences in the intravesical recurrence-free survival (IRFS), unspecified recurrence-free survival (UnRFS) and overall survival (OS) between LNUandONU. However, improvements in the extravesical recurrence free survival (ExRFS) and cancer specific survival (CSS) were observed inLNU. The pooled hazard ratios were 1.05 (95% CI [0.92-1.18]) for IRFS, 0.80 (95% CI [0.64-0.96]) for ExRFS, 1.10 (95% CI [0.93-1.28]) for UnRFS, 0.91 (95% CI [0.66-1.17]) for OS and 0.79 (95% CI [0.68-0.91]) for CSS. Conclusion. Based on current evidence, LNU could provide equivalent prognostic effects for upper tract urothelial carcinoma, and had better oncological control of ExRFS and CSS compared to ONU. However, considering all eligible studies with the intrinsic bias of retrospective study design, the results should be interpreted with caution. Prospective randomized trials are needed to verify these results.

Indexed as

Laparoscopic nephroureterectomyMeta-analysisOpen nephroureterectomyUpper tract urothelial carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID27280069
PMCPMC4893337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.