ReviewTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology2017
Lymphadenectomy: how to do it?
Review in Translational gastroenterology and hepatology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating safety and quality of robotic-assisted gastric cancer surgery: meta-analysis and meta-regression.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- Complete mesogastric excision for locally advanced gastric cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomized clinical trial.Cell reports. Medicine · 2021Trial
- Review
- Preclinical evaluation of sentinel node localization in the stomach via mannose-labelled magnetic nanoparticles and indocyanine green.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Short-term outcomes of D2 lymphadenectomy plus complete mesogastric excision for gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Observational
- The iGreenGO Study: The Clinical Role of Indocyanine Green Imaging Fluorescence in Modifying the Surgeon's Conduct During the Surgical Treatment of Advanced Gastric Cancer-Study Protocol for an International Multicenter Prospective Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
According to the more recent European guidelines, the D2 lymphadenectomy is considered the standard for curative intent treatment of patients with gastric cancer. Although, the surgical definition of D2 dissection and its technical aspects had been learned from Eastern surgeons in the past decades, some variations in the approach to D2 lymphadenectomy by European surgeons were detectable in randomized clinical trials dealing with lymphadenectomy. Despite in more recent years an improvement in surgical quality has been reported in European series, some differences in the practice of D2 dissection are thought to persist. As, these may contribute to discrepancies in gastric cancer survival observed across European countries, the standardization of surgical quality is an urgent need to improve the outcome of gastric cancer patients in Europe. In this manuscript, we focus on the technical aspects of the D2 dissection both in open and laparoscopic gastrectomy in order to contribute to the improvement of surgical care of gastric cancer in the West.
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.