ReviewGastroenterology research and practice2019
Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery in Lateral Lymph Node Dissection for Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-analysis of risk factors associated with oxaliplatin hypersensitivity reactions in cancer patients.International journal of clinical oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Review
- Two-team lateral lymph node dissection assisted by the transanal approach for locally advanced lower rectal cancer: comparison with the conventional transabdominal approach.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Extended Lymphadenectomy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancers: A Systematic Review.Annals of coloproctology · 2022Article
- Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open lateral lymph node dissection for locally advanced middle/lower rectal cancer using a propensity score-matched analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Behavioural Response Alteration inBiomarkers in cancer · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the clinical efficacies between laparoscopic and conventional open surgery in lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) for advanced rectal cancer.
methodsWe comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang Data and performed a cumulative meta-analysis. According to inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria, all eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or retrospective or prospective comparative studies assessing the two techniques were included, and then a meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software to assess the difference in clinical and oncological outcomes between the two treatment approaches.
resultsEight studies involving a total of 892 patients were finally selected, with 394 cases in the laparoscopic surgery group and 498 cases in the traditional open surgery group. Compared with the traditional open group, the laparoscopic group had a longer operative time (WMD = 81.56, 95% CI (2.09, 142.03),
conclusionLaparoscopic LLND has a similar efficacy in oncological outcomes and postoperative complications to the conventional open surgery, with the advantages of reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and higher R0 resection rate, and tumor radical cure is similar to traditional open surgery. Laparoscopic LLND is a safe and feasible surgical approach, and it may be used as a standard procedure in LLND for advanced rectal cancer.
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.