Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30254479›Full record

ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2018

Propensity score matching comparison of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer in a middle-income country: short-term outcomes and cost analysis.

Daiane Oliveira Tayar, Ulysses Ribeiro, Ivan Cecconello, Tiago M Magalhães, Claudia M Simões, José Otávio C Auler

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

Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Daiane Oliveira TayarDepartment of Anesthesia and Critical Care, University of São Paulo, Faculty of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil, daianed@usp.br.
Ulysses RibeiroDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of São Paulo, Faculty of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ivan CecconelloDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of São Paulo, Faculty of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
Tiago M MagalhãesDepartment of Statistics, Institute of Exact Sciences, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil.
Claudia M SimõesDepartment of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Cancer Institute of the State of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
José Otávio C AulerDepartment of Anesthesia and Critical Care, University of São Paulo, Faculty of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil, daianed@usp.br.
Universidade de São Paulo · BRInstituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo · BRUniversidade Federal de Juiz de Fora · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with improved postoperative outcomes compared to open surgery; however, economic studies have yielded contradictory results. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for patients with rectal cancer.

methodsPropensity score matching analysis was performed in a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent elective low anterior resection for rectal cancer treatment by laparoscopic and open surgery in a single Brazilian cancer center. Matched covariates included age, gender, body mass index, pTNM stage, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, type of anesthesia, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and index surgery. The clinical and economic outcomes were evaluated. The follow-up period was within 30 days of the index procedure. The clinical outcomes were reoperation, postoperative complications, operative time, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and postoperative hospital stay. For economic outcomes, a cost analysis was used to compare the costs.

resultsInitially, 220 patients were evaluated. After propensity score matching, 100 patients were included in the analysis (50 patients in the open surgery group and 50 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group). There were no differences in patients' baseline characteristics. Operative time was longer for laparoscopic surgery (247 minutes vs 285 minutes,

conclusionLaparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is not costlier than open surgery from the health care provider's perspective, since the intraoperative costs were offset by lower postoperative costs. Open surgery tends to have a longer length of stay.

Indexed as

cost analysishealth care costslaparoscopyopen surgerypropensity score matchingrectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID30254479
PMCPMC6140693
OpenAlexW2890984845

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.