Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27737492›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016

Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for FIGO stage I ovarian cancer.

Frederico S Falcetta, Theresa A Lawrie, Lídia Rf Medeiros, Maria Ines da Rosa, Maria I Edelweiss, Airton T Stein, Alice Zelmanowicz, Anaelena B Moraes, Roselaine R Zanini, Daniela D Rosa

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
11.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum: 2025 update.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

Frederico S FalcettaOncology, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Av. Nilópolis, 125, ap. 303, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 90460-050.
Theresa A Lawrie
Lídia Rf Medeiros
Maria Ines da Rosa
Maria I Edelweiss
Airton T Stein
Alice Zelmanowicz
Anaelena B Moraes
Roselaine R Zanini
Daniela D Rosa
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul · BRCochrane · GBHospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre · BRHospital Moinhos de Vento · BRRoyal United Hospital · GBSanta Casa Hospital · BRUniversidade do Extremo Sul Catarinense · BRUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis is an updated version of the original review that was first published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. Laparoscopy has become an increasingly common approach to surgical staging of apparent early-stage ovarian tumours. This review was undertaken to assess the available evidence on the benefits and risks of laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for the management of International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I ovarian cancer.

objectivesTo evaluate the benefits and harms of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of FIGO stage I ovarian cancer (stages Ia, Ib and Ic) when compared with laparotomy. SEARCH

methodsFor the original review, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials (CGCRG) Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Biological Abstracts and CancerLit from 1 January 1990 to 30 November 2007. We also handsearched relevant journals, reference lists of identified studies and conference abstracts. For the first updated review, the search was extended to the CGCRG Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS to 6 December 2011. For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from November 2011 to September 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and prospective cohort studies comparing laparoscopic staging with open surgery (laparotomy) in women with stage I ovarian cancer according to FIGO. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: There were no studies to include, therefore we tabulated data from non-randomised studies (NRS) for discussion as well as important data from other meta-analyses. MAIN

resultsWe performed no meta-analyses. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThis review has found no good-quality evidence to help quantify the risks and benefits of laparoscopy for the management of early-stage ovarian cancer as routine clinical practice.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyLaparotomyEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansNeoplasm StagingOvarian Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID27737492
PMCPMC6464147
OpenAlexW1792639311

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.