Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30719561›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2019

Robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of prospective observational studies.

Zheng Bobo, Wang Xin, Li Jiang, Wang Quan, Bi Liang, Deng Xiangbing, Wang Ziqiang

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
7.8field-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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 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. Trial
  10. Short-Term Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Gastrectomy Compared to Open Gastrectomy for Patients with Gastric Cancer: a Randomized Trial.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022
    Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. [Robotic gastrectomy: Research progress and practical challenges].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Zheng BoboDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Wang XinDepartment of Gastroenterology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710061, Shaanxi, China.
Li JiangCancer Hospital, National Cancer Center, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Wang QuanDigestive Disease Hospital, Xijing Hospital, The Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, 710032, Shaanxi, China.
Bi LiangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Deng XiangbingDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Wang ZiqiangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China. 331732856@qq.com.
Sichuan University · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University · CNXijing Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) in patients with gastric cancer to determine whether RG is an acceptable alternative to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

methodsPubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Chinese Biomedical Database were searched for prospective observational studies (POSs) comparing RG with LG for gastric cancer until October 2017. We compared short-term and long-term outcomes using systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA).

resultsSixteen POSs including 4576 patients were included in the meta-analyses. Compared with LG, RG had longer operative time (MD 57.98 min, P < 0.00001), lesser blood loss (MD - 23.71 ml, P = 0.005), and shorter time to first post-operative flatulence (MD - 0.14 days, P = 0.03). No significant difference was found in terms of the number of harvested lymph nodes, complications, reoperation, mortality, open conversion, proximal resection margin, and distal resection margin. The meta-analyses of complications, overall survival, and disease-free survival did not yield any sign of statistically significant difference between the two treatments, and the cumulative Z-curve crossed neither the traditional boundary nor the trial sequential monitoring boundary, suggesting the lack of firm evidence. TSA demonstrated that the cumulative Z-curve crossed either the traditional boundary or the trial sequential monitoring boundary on blood loss and operative time.

conclusionsThe present study demonstrates that RG is as acceptable as LG in terms of short- and long-term outcomes. The TSA demonstrated that further studies are not needed to evaluate the operative time and blood loss differences between these techniques.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresGastrectomyHumansMaleObservational Studies as TopicOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesReoperationStomach NeoplasmsSurvival AnalysisGastrectomyGastric cancerLaparoscopicRobotic

Identifiers

PMID30719561
OpenAlexW2914438806

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.