Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30610272›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2019

Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.

Ka Ting Ng, Azlan Kok Vui Tsia, Vanessa Yu Ling Chong

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 15 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  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. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Review
  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

3 authors.

Ka Ting NgFaculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Jalan Universiti, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. katingng1@gmail.com.
Azlan Kok Vui TsiaDepartment of Surgery, International Medical University, Bukit Jalil, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Vanessa Yu Ling ChongDepartment of Surgery, International Medical University, Bukit Jalil, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMinimally invasive surgery has been considered as an alternative to open surgery by surgeons for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy and safety profiles of robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer remain unclear in the literature. The primary aim of this review was to determine whether robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

methodsAll randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies were systematically searched in the databases of CENTRAL, EMBASE and PubMed from their inception until January 2018. Case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews were excluded.

resultsSeventy-three studies (6 RCTs and 67 observational studies) were eligible (n = 169,236) for inclusion in the data synthesis. In comparison with the CLS arm, RAS cohort was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of conversion to open surgery (ρ < 0.001, I

conclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that RAS provides better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients as compared to the CLS at the expense of longer duration of operative time. However, the inconclusive trial sequential analysis and an overall low level of evidence in this review warrant future adequately powered RCTs to draw firm conclusion.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresColorectal NeoplasmsHumansObservational Studies as TopicOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID30610272

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.