Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30997603›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2019

Lymph node yield, survival benefit, and safety of high and low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery in colorectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mou-Bo Si, Pei-Jing Yan, Zhen-Ying Du, Lai-Yuan Li, Hong-Wei Tian, Wen-Jie Jiang, Wu-Tang Jing, Jia Yang, Cai-Wen Han, Xiu-E Shi and 2 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.1field-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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mou-Bo SiDepartment of Clinical Medicine, The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Pei-Jing YanInstitute of Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Zhen-Ying DuDepartment of Physiology, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, 030001, People's Republic of China.
Lai-Yuan LiDepartment of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Hong-Wei TianDepartment of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Wen-Jie JiangDepartment of Clinical Medicine, The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Wu-Tang JingDepartment of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Jia YangDepartment of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Cai-Wen HanDepartment of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Xiu-E ShiInstitute of Evidence Based Rehabilitation Medicine of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China.
Ke-Hu YangInstitute of Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China. 15067818123@163.com.
Tian-Kang GuoDepartment of Clinical Medicine, The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China. TiankangGuo2019@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6302-7786
Gansu Provincial Hospital · CNFirst Hospital of Lanzhou University · CNShanxi Medical University · CN

Funding

Application of Minimally Invasive Technology in Acute Abdomen and Abdominal Injury Grant no.144FKCA073Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities: Evidence - based sociology research. Grant no. 16LZUJBWTD013, Grant no. 18LZUJBWZX006Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation Foundation of Gansu Province Grant no. GSXZYZH2018006Laboratory of Intelligent medical engineering of Gansu Province Grant no. GSXZYZH2018001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this meta-analysis was to compare high inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) ligation (HL) with low IMA ligation (LL) for the treatment of colorectal cancer and to evaluate the lymph node yield, survival benefit, and safety of these surgeries.

methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) were systematically searched for relevant articles that compared HL and LL for sigmoid or rectal cancer. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and the weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes.

resultsIn total, 30 studies were included in this analysis. There were significantly higher odds of anastomotic leakage and urethral dysfunction in patients treated with HL compared to those treated with LL (OR = 1.29; 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.55; OR = 2.45; 95% CI = 1.39 to 4.33, respectively). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the total number of harvested lymph nodes, the number of harvested lymph nodes around root of the IMA, local recurrence rate, and operation time. Further, no statistically significant group differences in 5-year overall survival rates and 5-year disease-free survival rates were detected among all patients nor among subgroups of stage II patients and stage III patients, respectively.

conclusionsLL can achieve equivalent lymph node yield to HL, and both procedures have similar survival benefits. However, LL is associated with a lower incidence of leakage and urethral dysfunction. Thus, LL is recommended for colorectal cancer surgery.

Indexed as

Colorectal SurgeryAnastomotic LeakColorectal NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalHumansLigationLymph NodesMesenteric Artery, InferiorNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsPublication BiasRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsSurvival AnalysisColorectal cancerHigh IMA ligationLow IMA ligation

Identifiers

PMID30997603
OpenAlexW2936832119

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.