Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29992404›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2019

Minimally invasive interval cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Joel Cardenas-Goicoechea, Yu Wang, Susan McGorray, Mohammed D Saleem, Semiramis L Carbajal Mamani, Ariel F Pomputius, Merry-Jennifer Markham, Jacqueline C Castagno

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joel Cardenas-GoicoecheaDivision Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, P.O. Box 100294, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA. joelcardenas@ufl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0589-5785
Yu WangDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Susan McGorrayDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Mohammed D SaleemDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Semiramis L Carbajal MamaniDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Ariel F PomputiusUniversity of Florida Health Science Center Libraries, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Merry-Jennifer MarkhamDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Jacqueline C CastagnoDivision Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, P.O. Box 100294, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA.
University of Florida · USUniversity of Florida Health Science Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The introduction of minimally invasive surgery in other gynecologic cancers has shown benefits with similar oncologic outcomes. However, the biology and complexity of surgery for ovarian cancer may preclude this approach for ovarian cancer patients. Our objective is to assess feasibility to achieve complete cytoreductive surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage IIIC-IV ovarian cancer patients via minimally invasive surgery. Our data sources include PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Biosis, Clinicaltrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model with DerSimonian and Laird estimator for the amount of heterogeneity to estimate the pooled outcomes. A funnel plot and Egger's regression test were used to test publication bias. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the quality of the studies. There were 6 studies (3 prospective, 3 retrospective) that met the criteria for meta-analysis with a total of 3231 patients, 567 were in the minimally invasive group and 2664 in the laparotomy group. Both groups were similar in stage and serous histology. Complete cytoreductive surgery was achieved in 74.50% (95% CI 40.41-97.65%) and 53.10% (95% CI 4.88-97.75%) of patients in the minimally invasive and laparotomy groups, respectively. There was no statistical significant difference between these 2 pooled proportions (p = 0.52). Three studies compared minimally invasive surgery vs laparotomy. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in obtaining complete cytoreductive surgery [OR = 0.90 (95% CI 0.70-1.16; p = 0.43)]. A symmetrical funnel plot indicated no publication bias. The pooled proportion for grade > 2 postoperative complications was not significant among the laparoscopy group [3.11% (95% CI 0.00-10.24%; p = 0.15)]. Complete cytoreductive surgery appears feasible and safe with minimally invasive surgery in selected advanced ovarian cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Indexed as

Chemotherapy, AdjuvantCytoreduction Surgical ProceduresDatabases, BibliographicFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm StagingOvarian NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeCytoreductive surgeryLaparoscopyNeoadjuvant chemotherapyOvarian cancerRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID29992404
OpenAlexW2816853131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.