Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29209132›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of gastroenterology2017

Short-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopic vs open rectal excision for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aleix Martínez-Pérez, Maria Clotilde Carra, Francesco Brunetti, Nicola de'Angelis

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of gastroenterology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Quality of life in Tunisian colorectal cancer patients: a cross-sectional study.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Robotic transanal total mesorectal excision: Is the future now?World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Aleix Martínez-PérezDepartment of Digestive, Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Henri Mondor University Hospital, AP-HP, Université Paris Est - UPEC, 94010 Créteil, France.
Maria Clotilde CarraRothschild Hospital, AP-HP, Université Paris VII, 75012 Paris, France.
Francesco BrunettiDepartment of Digestive, Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Henri Mondor University Hospital, AP-HP, Université Paris Est - UPEC, 94010 Créteil, France.
Nicola de'AngelisDepartment of Digestive, Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Henri Mondor University Hospital, AP-HP, Université Paris Est - UPEC, 94010 Créteil, France. nicola.deangelis@aphp.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo review evidence on the short-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopic (LRR)

methodsA systematic literature search was performed using Cochrane Central Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, OpenGrey and ClinicalTrials.gov register for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing LRR vs ORR for rectal cancer and reporting short-term clinical outcomes. Articles published in English from January 1, 1995 to June, 30 2016 that met the selection criteria were retrieved and reviewed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statements checklist for reporting a systematic review was followed. Random-effect models were used to estimate mean differences and risk ratios. The robustness and heterogeneity of the results were explored by performing sensitivity analyses. The pooled effect was considered significant when

resultsOverall, 14 RCTs were included. No differences were found in postoperative mortality (

conclusionLRR is associated with lesser blood loss, smaller incision length, and longer operative times compared to ORR. No differences are observed for postoperative morbidity and mortality.

Indexed as

BiopsyBlood Loss, SurgicalConversion to Open SurgeryDefecationDigestive System Surgical ProceduresHumansIncidenceLaparoscopyLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRectal NeoplasmsRectumTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopic rectal resectionLaparoscopyMeta-analysisOpen rectal resectionPostoperative morbidityRectal cancerShort-term outcomesSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29209132
PMCPMC5703920

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.