Response to Comment on "Letter to the Editor Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy (LEOPARD)".

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Cost-effectiveness of robotic vs laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Results from the national prospective trial ROBOCOSTES.Surgical endoscopy · 2024
   Observational
2. Trends and disparities in access to minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (midp): an eight-year analysis from the national cancer database.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024
   Article
3. Preliminary experience with a new robotic technique to facilitate distal pancreatectomy with spleen preservation: left lateral approach in right lateral decubitus position.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): A Multicenter Patient-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.2019
• Comment on
  Comment on "Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy (LEOPARD)".2019

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as