Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30205416›Full record

ArticleCancer research and treatment2019

Comparative Effectiveness of Abdominal versus Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer in the Postdissemination Era.

Jin Hee Kim, Kyungjoo Kim, Seo Jin Park, Jung-Yun Lee, Kidong Kim, Myong Cheol Lim, Jae Weon Kim

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 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. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Jin Hee KimDepartment of Nursing, Chosun University College of Medicine, Gwangju, Korea.
Kyungjoo KimDepartment of Public Health, Korea University, Seoul, Korea.
Seo Jin ParkDepartment of Nursing, Chosun University College of Medicine, Gwangju, Korea.
Jung-Yun LeeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Women's Life Medical Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Kidong KimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Myong Cheol LimDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Irvine Medical Center, University of California, Orange, CA, USA.
Jae Weon KimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Chosun University · KRSeoul National University Bundang Hospital · KRSeoul National University · KRUniversity of California, Irvine Medical Center · USYonsei University · KR

Funding

Bumsuk Academic
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDespite the benefits of minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer, there are a lack of randomized trials comparing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy. We compared morbidity, cost of care, and survival between abdominal radical hysterectomy and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe used the Korean nationwide database to identify women with cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014. Patients who underwent abdominal radical hysterectomy were compared to those who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. Perioperative morbidity, the use of adjuvant therapy, and survival were evaluated after propensity score balancing.

resultsWe identified 6,335 patients, including 3,235 who underwent abdominal radical hysterectomy and 3,100 who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. The use of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy increased from 46.1% in 2011 to 51.8% in 2014. Patients who were younger, had a more recent year of diagnosis, and were treated in the metropolitan area were more likely to undergo a laparoscopic procedure (p < 0.001). Compared to abdominal radical hysterectomy, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was associated with lower rates of complication, fewertransfusions, a shorter hospital stay, less adjuvant therapy, and reduced total medical costs (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a better overall survival than abdominal operation (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.64 to 0.85).

conclusionIn the postdissemination era, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was associated with more favorable morbidity profiles, a lower cost of care, and comparable survival than abdominal radical hysterectomy.

Indexed as

HysterectomyLaparoscopyCombined Modality TherapyFemaleHumansNeoplasm StagingOdds RatioRepublic of KoreaSafety ManagementTreatment OutcomeUterine Cervical NeoplasmsLaparoscopyMinimally invasive surgeryRadical hysterectomyUterine cervical neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID30205416
PMCPMC6473278
OpenAlexW2890245328

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.