ArticleCancer management and research2019
Adverse effect of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy depends on tumor size in patients with cervical cancer.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Article
- Lymph-Vascular Space Invasion in Patients with Stages IA2-IIA2 Cervical Cancer Treated with Laparoscopic versus Open Radical Hysterectomy.Cancer management and research · 2021Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe study aimed to explore the survival outcomes of early-stage cervical cancer (CC) patients treated with laparoscopic/abdominal radical hysterectomy (LRH/ARH). PATIENTS AND
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis involving women who had undergone LRH/ARH for CC in early stage during the 2013-2015 period in West China Second University Hospital. The survival outcomes and potential prognostic factors were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis, respectively.
resultsA total of 678 patients were included in our analysis. The overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between the ARH (n=423) and LRH (n=255) groups achieved no significant differences (
conclusionLRH was an alternative to ARH for surgical treatment of CC patients with a tumor diameter ≤4 cm. However, for the patients with a tumor diameter >4 cm, priority should be given to ARH.
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.