Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30718559›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2019

The oncological safety in minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Du-Jiang Yang, Jun-Jie Xiong, Hui-Min Lu, Yi Wei, Ling Zhang, Shan Lu, Wei-Ming Hu

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Sociodemographic variation in the utilization of minimally invasive surgical approaches for pancreatic cancer.HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Du-Jiang YangDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Jun-Jie XiongDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Hui-Min LuDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Yi WeiDepartment of Transportation Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Ling ZhangDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Shan LuDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Wei-Ming HuDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China. huweiming@scu.edu.cn.
West China Hospital of Sichuan University · CNSichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The safety of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) regarding oncological outcomes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the oncological safety of MIDP and ODP for PDAC. Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies comparing outcomes in patients undergoing MIDP and ODP for PDAC from January 1994 to August 2018. In total, 11 retrospective comparative studies with 4829 patients (MIDP: 1076, ODP: 3753) were included. The primary outcome was long-term survival, including 3-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year OS. The 3-year OS (hazard ratio (HR): 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89, 1.21; P = 0.66) and 5-year OS (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.28; P = 0.59) showed no significant differences between the two groups. Furthermore, the positive surgical margin rate (weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.89, P = 0.003) was lower in the MIDP group. However, patients in the MIDP group had less intraoperative blood loss (WMD: -250.03, 95% CI: -359.68, -140.39; P < 0.00001), a shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.76, 95% CI: -3.73, -1.78; P < 0.00001) and lower morbidity (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.71; P < 0.00001) and mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.81, P = 0.005) than patients in the ODP group. The limited evidence suggested that MIDP might be safer with regard to oncological outcomes in PDAC patients. Therefore, future high-quality studies are needed to examine the oncological safety of MIDP.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresBlood Loss, SurgicalCarcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalHumansPancreatic NeoplasmsPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID30718559
PMCPMC6362067
OpenAlexW2914268992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.