Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29026312›Full record

ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2017

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic operation in anus-preserving rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

Yongzhen Cui, Cheng Li, Zhongfa Xu, Yingming Wang, Yamei Sun, Huirong Xu, Zengjun Li, Yanlai Sun

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Robotics Total Mesorectal Excision Up To the Minute.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2020
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. The Current Role of Robotics in Colorectal Surgery.Current gastroenterology reports · 2019
    Review
  15. Review
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Yongzhen Cui *Department of Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery, Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences.
Cheng Li *Department of President's Office, Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences.
Zhongfa XuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan.
Yingming WangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery, Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences.
Yamei SunDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Zhucheng People's Hospital of Shandong Province, Zhucheng, People's Republic of China.
Huirong XuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery, Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences.
Zengjun LiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery, Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences.
Yanlai SunDepartment of Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery, Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences.
Shandong First Medical University · CNAcademy of Medical Sciences · GBAffiliated Hospital of Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences · CNShandong University · CNZoucheng People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this meta-analysis is to provide recommendations for clinical practice and prevention of postoperative complications, such as circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, and compare the amount of intraoperative bleeding, safety, operative time, recovery, outcomes, and clinical significance of robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures in anus-preserving rectal cancer.

methodsA literature search (PubMed) was performed to identify biomedical research papers and abstracts of studies comparing robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures. We attempted to obtain the full-text link for papers published between 2000 and 2016, and hand-searched references for relevant literature. RevMan 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis.

resultsNine papers (949 patients) were eligible for inclusion; there were 473 patients (49.8%) in the robotic group and 476 patients (50.2%) in the laparoscopic group. According to the data provided in the literature, seven indicators were used to complete the evaluation. The results of the meta-analysis suggested that robot-assisted procedure was associated with lower intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD] -41.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] -77.51, -4.79;

conclusionThe Da Vinci robot was superior to laparoscopy with respect to blood loss, open conversion, hospital stay, and postoperative complications during anus-preserving rectal cancer procedures; however, conventional laparoscopy had an advantage regarding operative time. The remaining indicators (CRMs and recovery from intestinal peristalsis) did not differ.

Indexed as

anus-preserving operationDa Vinci surgical systemlaparoscopic surgerymeta-analysisrectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID29026312
PMCPMC5626418
OpenAlexW2759032239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.