ReviewTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology2016
Historical assumptions of lymphadenectomy.
Review in Translational gastroenterology and hepatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The role of lymphadenectomy for the treatment of gastric cancer is still very much open to debate. Consequently, Japanese, European and American surgeons perform different typologies of lymphadenectomy because of the absence of randomized clinical trials confirming the superiority of extended lymphadenectomy over less invasive surgery. In Japan, D2 lymphadenectomy has been considered as the gold standard for advanced gastric carcinoma for many years. Although numerous European studies have been conducted in an attempt to find differences between D1 and D2 lymphadenectomy, none has succeeded to date. The decision to wait for results attesting to the fact that D2 guarantees a better outcome than D1 resulted in a long delay in the implementation of D2 as the gold standard treatment in Europe. In the U.S., the study by Macdonald
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.