Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30170392›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2018

Laparoscopic versus open nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Feng Liu, Wei Guo, Xueying Zhou, Youpeng Ding, Yanan Ma, Yi Hou, Xiangbo Kong, Zhixin Wang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Laparoscopic radical cystectomy and nephroureterectomyMedicine and pharmacy reports · 2020
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

8 authors.

Feng LiuDepartment of Nephrology Department of Out Patient Department of Operation Room Department of Urology, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, PR China.
Wei Guo
Xueying Zhou
Youpeng Ding
Yanan Ma
Yi Hou
Xiangbo Kong
Zhixin Wang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU) and open nephroureterectomy (ONU) for the treatment of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC).

methodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were selected for systematic review of trials that compared outcomes of LNU and ONU. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and STATA 13.0 software.

resultsLNU was associated with longer operation time (P < .001), shorter hospital stay (P < .001), less blood loss (P = .006) and lower rate of transfusion (P < .001). The occurrence of complications, including minor (P = .52), major (P = .21) and total complications (P = .19) were similar between LNU and ONU. There was no significant difference in the rate of 5-year recurrence-free survival (P = .90), 5-year cancer-specific survival (P = .12), and 5-year overall survival (P = .11) as well as 2-year RFS (P = .84), 2-year CSS (P = .86), and 2-year OS (P = .25).

conclusionOur results indicated that LNU is a safe and effective method to treat UTUC. Given the limitations of this study, further multicenter, randomized trials are required to confirm these findings.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinomaDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedNephroureterectomyOperative TimeTreatment OutcomeUrologic NeoplasmsUrothelium

Identifiers

PMID30170392
PMCPMC6393120

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.