ArticleBMJ open2019
Comparison of the safety and efficacy between linear stapler and circular stapler in totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy using the "enjoyable space" approach coupled with self-pulling and latter transection reconstruction versus laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy for upper gastric cancer: short-term outcomes.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2022Article
- Comparison Between Linear Stapler and Circular Stapler After Laparoscopic-Assisted Distal Gastrectomy in Patients With Gastric Cancer.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Isoperistaltic versus antiperistaltic uncut Roux-en-Y anastomosis after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matched analysis.BMC surgery · 2020Article
- Initial experience of single-incision plus one port left-side approach totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTotal gastrectomy is often recommended for upper body gastric cancer, and totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) is deemed to be a promising surgical method with the well-known advantages such as less invasion and fast recovery. However, the anastomosis between oesophagus and jejunum is the difficulty of TLTG. Although staplers have promoted the development of TLTG, the choice of suitable staplers to complete oesophagojejunostomy is controversial and unclear. Therefore, a higher level of research evidence is needed to compare the two types of staplers in terms of safety and efficacy for oesophagojejunostomy in TLTG among patients with gastric cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang Databases will be comprehensively searched from January 1990 to July 2019. All eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs or observational studies comparing the two types of staplers will be included. A meta-analysis will be performed using Review Manager V.5.3 software to compare the safety and efficacy of linear and circular staplers for oesophagojejunostomy in TLTG. The primary outcomes are anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, anastomotic haemorrhage. The secondary outcomes include time to first instance of passing gas after surgery, first feeding time, total operation time, reconstruction time, estimated blood loss. The heterogeneity of this study will be assessed by p values and I ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval will not be required because this proposed systematic review and meta-analysis is based on previously published data, which does not include intervention data on patients. The findings of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at a relevant congress. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018111680.
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.