Correction to: Surgical and oncological outcomes after complete mesocolic excision in right-sided colon cancer compared with conventional surgery: a retrospective, single-institution study.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Laparoscopic radical resection for situs inversus totalis with colonic splenic flexure carcinoma: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2022
   Article
2. Complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer is technically challenging but the most oncological appealing.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2018
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  Surgical and oncological outcomes after complete mesocolic excision in right-sided colon cancer compared with conventional surgery: a retrospective, single-institution study.2018

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract