Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28639576›Full record

SynthesisChinese medical journal2017

Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection of Small Bowel Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ke Chen, Bin Zhang, Yue-Long Liang, Lin Ji, Shun-Jie Xia, Yu Pan, Xue-Yong Zheng, Xian-Fa Wang, Xiu-Jun Cai

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Chinese medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Small bowel GISTs: clinicopathological patterns and the role of inflammatory markers.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie
    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

9 authors.

Ke ChenDepartment of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310016; School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310058, China.
Bin ZhangSchool of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310058, China.
Yue-Long LiangDepartment of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310016, China.
Lin JiSchool of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310058, China.
Shun-Jie XiaSchool of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310058, China.
Yu PanDepartment of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310016, China.
Xue-Yong ZhengDepartment of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310016, China.
Xian-Fa WangDepartment of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310016, China.
Xiu-Jun CaiDepartment of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310016; School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310058, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic resection (LAP) for small bowel gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) is not as common as for stomach. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LAP for small bowel GISTs with systematic review and meta-analysis.

methodsThe Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases before December 2016 were comprehensively searched to retrieve comparative trials of LAP and conventional open resection (OPEN) for GISTs of small bowel with a relevance of review object. These researches reported intraoperative and postoperative clinical course (operation time, blood loss, time to first flatus and oral intake, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality), oncologic outcomes, and long-term survival status.

resultsSix studies involving 391 patients were identified. Compared to OPEN, LAP had associated with a shorter operation time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -27.97 min, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -49.40--6.54, P < 0.01); less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -0.72 ml; 95% CI: -1.30--0.13, P = 0.02); earlier time to flatus (WMD = -0.83 day; 95% CI: -1.44--0.22, P < 0.01); earlier time to restart oral intake (WMD = -1.95 days; 95% CI: -3.31--0.60, P < 0.01); shorter hospital stay (WMD = -3.00 days; 95% CI: -4.87--1.13, P < 0.01); and a decrease in overall complications (risk ratio = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.33-0.97, P = 0.04). In addition, the tumor recurrence and long-term survival rate showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups of patients.

conclusionsLAP for small bowel GISTs is a safe and feasible procedure with shorter operation time, less blood loss, less overall complications, and quicker recovery. Besides, tumor recurrence and the long-term survival rate are similar to open approach. Because of the limitations of this study, methodologically high-quality studies are needed for certain appraisal.

Indexed as

GastrectomyGastrointestinal Stromal TumorsHumansLaparoscopyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID28639576
PMCPMC5494924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.