ArticleMedicine2018
Robotic surgeries for patients with colorectal cancer who have undergone abdominal procedures: Protocol for meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Application of the advance incision in robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal anterior resection.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Impact of previous abdominal surgery on robotic-assisted rectal surgery in patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score matching study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the safety and the advantages of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries have been confirmed, the use of both modalities in patients with previous abdominal surgeries (PAS) history remains uncertain. Herein, we perform a meta-analysis to investigate the impact of PAS on perioperative recovery outcomes from laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries.
methodsWe will search PUBMED, the Cochrane Library, the Chinese Biomedical database (CBM), WanFang data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) up to January 2018. Studies will be screened by title, abstract, and full text independently and in duplicate. Studies that report the impact of PAS on perioperative recovery outcomes from laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries will be eligible for inclusion. Outcome variables will be assessed included combined resection, conversion, operation time, blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes, days to soft diet intake, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications. Assessment of risk of bias and data synthesis will be performed using STATA SE 12.0. Heterogeneity among studies will be assessed using the I statistic.
resultsRandomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and propensity-matched comparative studies will be used for the quantitative synthesis of the meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of PAS on perioperative recovery outcomes from laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries.
conclusionsWe aim to draw an objective conclusion of the comparisons in aspects of perioperative outcomes and provide physicians level I evidences for clinical decision makings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.