Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30142771›Full record

ReviewMedicine2018

Comparison of robot-assisted surgery, laparoscopic-assisted surgery, and open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer: A network meta-analysis.

Shihou Sheng, Tiancheng Zhao, Xu Wang

Open access · goldAbstract readReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shihou ShengDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery Department of Endoscopy Center, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University Department of Colorectal and Anal Surgery, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin Province, China.
Tiancheng Zhao
Xu Wang
Union Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to find the better treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) by comparing robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS), laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery (LACS), and open surgery using network meta-analysis.

methodsA literature search updated to August 15, 2017 was performed. All the included literatures were evaluated according to the quality evaluation criteria of bias risk recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. All data were comprehensively analyzed by ADDIS. Odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to show the effect index of all data. The degree of convergence of the model was evaluated by the Brooks-Gelman-Rubin method with the potential scale reduction factor (PSRF) as the evaluation indicator.

resultsThe PSRF values of operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complication, mortality, and anastomotic leakage ranged from 1.00 to 1.01, and those of wound infection, bleeding, and ileus ranged from 1.00 to 1.02. Open surgery had the shortest operation time compared with LACS and RACS. Furthermore, compared with LACS, the amount of blood loss, complication, mortality, bleeding rate, and ileus rate for RACS were the least, and the length of hospital stay for RACS was the shortest. The anastomotic leakage rate for LACS was the least, but there was no significant difference compared with those of RACS and open surgery. The wound infection rate for LACS was the least, but there was no significant difference compared with that of RACS.

conclusionRACS might be a better treatment for patients with CRC.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRobotic Surgical Procedures

Identifiers

PMID30142771
PMCPMC6112974
OpenAlexW2888071826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.