Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31122260›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2019

Comparative analysis of robotic gastrectomy and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in terms of their long-term oncological outcomes: a meta-analysis of 3410 gastric cancer patients.

Guixiang Liao, Zhihong Zhao, Muhammad Khan, Yawei Yuan, Xianming Li

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

5 authors.

Guixiang LiaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Second Clinical Medicine Centre, Jinan University, Shenzhen, 518020, People's Republic of China. liaoguixiang@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4369-8811
Zhihong ZhaoDepartment of Nephrology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Second Clinical Medicine Centre, Jinan University, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China.
Muhammad KhanDepartment of Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, People's Republic of China.
Yawei YuanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Center of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. yuanyw12@163.com.
Xianming LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Second Clinical Medicine Centre, Jinan University, Shenzhen, 518020, People's Republic of China. chenlhnfy@163.com.

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Shenzhen JCYJ20170307095828424Shenzhen Health and Famly Planning System Research Project SZBC2017024the technical research and cultivation project for the youth of Shenzhen people's hospital SYKYPY2019029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData regarding the long-term oncological outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) are limited despite the increased commonality of this method as an alternative for gastric cancer treatment. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes of RG in comparison to that of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

methodsThe PubMed, ISI Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were comprehensively searched for studies that compared RG and LG in terms of their long-term survival outcomes. The hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and relapse-free survival (RFS) were obtained, while the odds ratio (OR) was recorded for the recurrence rate. A sensitivity analysis was performed. Egger's test and Begg's test were applied to evaluate publication bias.

resultsEight studies were identified and involved 3410 gastric cancer patients (RG, 1009; LG, 2401). The two groups had no significant differences in OS (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.80-1.20; P = 0.81), DFS (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.33-5.59; P = 0.67), RFS (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.19; P = 0.53), or recurrence rate (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.71-1.19; P = 0.53). Moreover, the two techniques were comparable in length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative complication rate, 30-day mortality rate, and rate of conversion to open surgery.

conclusionsThe long-term oncological outcomes, expressed as OS, DFS, RFS, and recurrence rate, were similar between RG and LG. However, more randomized controlled trials with rigorous study designs and patient cohorts are needed to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of RG in patients with gastric cancer.

Indexed as

GastrectomyHumansLaparoscopyPrognosisRobotic Surgical ProceduresStomach NeoplasmsSurvival RateGastric cancerLaparoscopic surgeryOverall survival (OS)PrognosisRobotic gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID31122260
PMCPMC6533666

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.