Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31285678›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2019

Should laparoscopic lymph node biopsy be the preferred diagnostic modality for isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy?

R W D Gilbert, B H Bird, M G Murphy, C J O'Boyle

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Single-Port vs. Conventional Multi-Port Laparoscopic Lymph Node Biopsy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

R W D GilbertSchool of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
B H BirdSchool of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
M G MurphySchool of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
C J O'BoyleSchool of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
University College Cork · IEBon Secours Hospital Cork · IEUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy is frequently detected, but often challenging to diagnose. To obtain a tissue diagnosis, percutaneous biopsy (pb) or laparoscopic biopsy (lb) is often undertaken. The safety profiles and diagnostic accuracy of pb and lb within the abdomen are both poorly defined. Methods: In this retrospective analysis, we identified all patients who underwent lb or pb for isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy at our institute during 2008-2016. Results: Of 62 patients who underwent nodal biopsy for isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy, 33 underwent lb and 29 underwent pb. For the 33 patients who underwent lb, the procedure was diagnostic in 100% of cases; for the 29 who underwent pb, the procedure was diagnostic in 18 cases (62.1%). Both procedures were safe, with similar complication rates (6.0% for lb; 7.0% for pb). Conclusions: Our results establish that lb and pb are both safe and reliable in the setting of isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy. We also demonstrate that each procedure has situational advantages. A pb should be considered to be the upfront diagnostic modality, particularly when anatomic or disease factors favour its success. In situations in which it is felt that pb cannot safely access the lymphadenopathy or in disease states in which the yield of a core biopsy will be insufficient, lb should be strongly considered. Examples include extra-retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy and cases of suspected lymphoma.

Indexed as

AbdomenAgedBiopsyFemaleHumansLaparoscopyLymphadenopathyLymph NodesMaleMiddle AgedBiopsieslaparoscopylymph nodeslymphomamedical oncologysurgical oncology

Identifiers

PMID31285678
PMCPMC6588052
OpenAlexW2953773898

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.