ArticleAmerican journal of clinical oncology2019
Surgical, Urinary, and Survival Outcomes of Nerve-sparing Versus Traditional Radical Hysterectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study in China.
Article in American journal of clinical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of timing of urinary catheter removal on voiding dysfunction after radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2022Article
- Surgery for cervical cancer: consensus & controversies.The Indian journal of medical research · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the surgical, urinary, and survival outcomes between nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) and traditional radical hysterectomy (TRH) for stage IB cervical cancer, in which all the primary procedures were performed by a single physician.
methodsPatients with cervical cancer of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IB were included if they received radical hysterectomy of class III or type C in 1 center between February 2001 and November 2015. The epidemiological, clinicopathologic, surgical, and urinary data were collected and compared between the NSRH and TRH groups. The follow-up period ended in December 2016.
resultsA total of 406 patients were identified, including 111 (27.3%) in the TRH group and 295 (72.7%) in the NSRH group. Most epidemiological and clinicopathologic characteristics were balanced between the 2 groups. The NSRH and TRH groups had similar mean operating times and comparable short-term postoperative complications, but NSRH had less mean estimated blood loss and a shorter mean postoperative stay (all P <0.001). Within 12 months from surgeries, patients in the NSRH group had less residual urine and fewer urinary dysfunctions. For the 371 patients with definite survival outcomes, in the multivariate analysis, both overall survival (hazard ratio=1.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-5.02) and disease-free survival (hazard ratio=1.50, 95% confidence interval: 0.72-3.11, P=0.280) of the NSRH group were similar to those of the TRH group.
conclusionNSRH for stage IB cervical cancer patients had better urinary outcomes than TRH without sacrificing the safety and survival benefits.
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.