Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31236004›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of gastroenterology2019

Mini-invasive

Shan-Ping Ye, Hua Qiu, Shi-Jun Liao, Jun-Hua Ai, Jun Shi

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation StudyMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shan-Ping YeDepartment of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Hua QiuDepartment of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Shi-Jun LiaoDepartment of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Jun-Hua AiDepartment of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Jun ShiDepartment of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China. shijunyfy@sina.com.
First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University · CNNanchang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe safety and feasibility of the simultaneous resection of primary colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous colorectal liver metastases (SCRLM) have been demonstrated in some studies. Combined resection is expected to be the optimal strategy for patients with CRC and SCRLM. However, traditional laparotomy is traumatic, and the treatment outcome of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is still obscure.

aimTo compare the treatment outcomes of MIS and open surgery (OS) for the simultaneous resection of CRC and SCRLM.

methodsA systematic search through December 22, 2018 was conducted in electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library). All studies comparing the clinical outcomes of MIS and OS for patients with CRC and SCRLM were included by eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software. The quality of the pooled study was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The publication bias was evaluated by a funnel plot and the Begg's and Egger's tests. Fixed- and random-effects models were applied according to heterogeneity.

resultsTen retrospective cohort studies involving 502 patients (216 patients in the MIS group and 286 patients in the OS group) were included in this study. MIS was associated with less intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -130.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): -210.95 to -49.23,

conclusionConsidering the studies included in this meta-analysis, MIS is a safe and effective alternative technique for the simultaneous resection of CRC and SCRLM. Compared with OS, MIS has less intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion and quicker postoperative recovery. Furthermore, the two groups show equivalent long-term outcomes.

Indexed as

Blood Loss, SurgicalBlood TransfusionColectomyColorectal NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalHumansLaparoscopyPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PeriodProctectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresSurvival AnalysisTime FactorsColorectal neoplasmsLaparotomyMeta-analysisMinimally invasive surgical proceduresSynchronous liver metastases

Identifiers

PMID31236004
PMCPMC6580357
OpenAlexW2950943482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.