Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27424111›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2017

Robot-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial and cervical cancers: a systematic review.

Immaculate F Nevis, Bahareh Vali, Caroline Higgins, Irfan Dhalla, David Urbach, Marcus Q Bernardini

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2021
    Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. RoboticIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Immaculate F NevisHealth Quality Ontario, 130 Bloor Street West, 10th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5S 1N5, Canada. immaculatenevis@yahoo.ca.
Bahareh ValiHealth Quality Ontario, 130 Bloor Street West, 10th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5S 1N5, Canada.
Caroline HigginsHealth Quality Ontario, 130 Bloor Street West, 10th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5S 1N5, Canada.
Irfan DhallaHealth Quality Ontario, 130 Bloor Street West, 10th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5S 1N5, Canada.
David UrbachToronto General Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada.
Marcus Q BernardiniDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, University of Toronto, 610, University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada.
Princess Margaret Cancer Centre · CASt. Michael's Hospital · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Total and radical hysterectomies are the most common treatment strategies for early-stage endometrial and cervical cancers, respectively. Surgical modalities include open surgery, laparoscopy, and more recently, minimally invasive robot-assisted surgery. We searched several electronic databases for randomized controlled trials and observational studies with a comparison group, published between 2009 and 2014. Our outcomes of interest included both perioperative and morbidity outcomes. We included 35 observational studies in this review. We did not find any randomized controlled trials. The quality of evidence for all reported outcomes was very low. For women with endometrial cancer, we found that there was a reduction in estimated blood loss between the robot-assisted surgery compared to both laparoscopy and open surgery. There was a reduction in length of hospital stay between robot-assisted surgery and open surgery but not laparoscopy. There was no difference in total lymph node removal between the three modalities. There was no difference in the rate of overall complications between the robot-assisted technique and laparoscopy. For women with cervical cancer, there were no differences in estimated blood loss or removal of lymph nodes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic procedure. Compared to laparotomy, robot-assisted hysterectomy for cervical cancer showed an overall reduction in estimated blood loss. Although robot-assisted hysterectomy is clinically effective for the treatment of both endometrial and cervical cancers, methodologically rigorous studies are lacking to draw definitive conclusions.

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsFemaleHumansHysterectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCervical cancerEffectivenessEndometrial cancerHysterectomyLaparoscopyLaparotomyRobot assistedSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27424111
OpenAlexW2463855340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.