ArticleANZ journal of surgery2019
Clinical efficacy of middle pancreatectomy contrasts distal pancreatectomy: a single-institution experience and review of literature.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent trends in organ-preserving pancreatectomy: Its problems and clinical advantages compared with other standard pancreatectomies.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe aim to analyse the difference of clinical efficacy between middle pancreatectomy (MP) and distal pancreatectomy (DP).
methodsA retrospective study was used to analyse 39 cases of MP and 52 cases of DP from the Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery of the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University from February 2007 to December 2016. Furthermore, we identify randomized controlled trials or strictly designed clinical controlled trials on MP and DP. We performed a meta-analysis of the final included studies using RevMan 5.3 software to illustrate the differences in efficacy between MP and DP.
resultsIn the MP group, the operation time and diet start time were significantly longer than DP group. However, there was no significant difference in serious complications including clinically significant pancreatic fistula (grades B and C), delayed gastric emptying, reoperative and mortality. Furthermore, compared with DP, patients in MP group could benefit from long-term post-operative exocrine and endocrine function. Finally, we performed a meta-analysis including 14 studies with a total of 1104 patients and proved that the pancreatic fistula rate, endocrine and exocrine function were significantly different in the two groups.
conclusionThe MP is a safe and feasible surgical method. It can well preserve the endocrine and exocrine function of pancreas and improve the life quality of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.