Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28628562›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of surgery2018

Robotic Versus Video-assisted Lobectomy/Segmentectomy for Lung Cancer: A Meta-analysis.

Hengrui Liang, Wenhua Liang, Lei Zhao, Difei Chen, Jianrong Zhang, Yiyin Zhang, Shiyan Tang, Jianxing He

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

94 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 159 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted and video assisted thoracic surgery for early non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hengrui LiangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, China.
Wenhua LiangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, China.
Lei ZhaoThe Sixth Affiliated Hospital, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Functional Experiment Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Difei ChenDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, China.
Jianrong ZhangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, China.
Yiyin ZhangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, China.
Shiyan TangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, China.
Jianxing HeDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, China.
First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University · CNGuangzhou Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

: Objective: To compare the safety/efficacy of the robotic-assisted lobectomy/segmentectomy (RAL/S) with the video-assisted lobectomy/segmentectomy (VAL/S) for radical lung cancer resection.

backgroundIt remains uncertain whether the newly developed RAL/S is comparable with the VAL/S.

methodsA comprehensive search of online databases was performed. Perioperative outcomes were synthesized. Cumulative meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the temporal trend of pooled outcomes. Specific subgroups (propensity score matching studies, pure lobectomy studies) were examined.

resultsAnalysis of 14 studies including a total of 7438 patients was performed. RAL/S was performed on 3239 patients, whereas the other 4199 patients underwent VAL/S. The 30-day mortality [0.7% vs 1.1%; odds ratio (OR) 0.53, P = 0.045] and conversion rate to open surgery (10.3% vs 11.9%; OR 0.57, P < 0.001) were significantly lower in patients who underwent RAL/S than VAL/S. Meanwhile, the postoperative complications (27.5% vs 28.2%; OR 0.95, P = 0.431), operation time [176.63 vs 162.74 min; standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.30, P = 0.086], duration of hospitalization (4.90 vs 5.23 days; SMD -0.08, P = 0.292), days to tube removal (4.10 vs 3.53 days; SMD 0.25, P = 0.120), retrieved lymph node (11.96 vs 10.67; SMD 0.46, P = 0.381), and retrieved lymph node station (4.98 vs 4.32; SMD 0.83, P = 0.261) were similar between the 2 groups. The cumulative meta-analyses suggested that the relative effects between 2 groups have already stabilized. All outcomes of subgroup and overall analyses were similar.

conclusionsThis up-to-date meta-analysis confirms that RAL/S is a feasible and safe alternative to VAL/S for radical resection of lung cancer. Future studies should focus on the long-term benefits and cost effectiveness of RAL/S compared with VAL/S.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresThoracic Surgery, Video-AssistedHumansLung NeoplasmsModels, StatisticalPneumonectomyTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID28628562
OpenAlexW2633026238

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.