Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31656660›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2019

Comparisons of short-term outcomes between robot-assisted and thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy with extended two-field lymph node dissection for resectable thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Junying Chen, Qianwen Liu, Xu Zhang, Hong Yang, Zihui Tan, Yaobin Lin, Jianhua Fu

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Minimally invasive thoracic surgery: robot-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Junying ChenSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Qianwen LiuSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Xu ZhangSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Hong YangSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Zihui TanSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Yaobin LinSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Jianhua FuSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CNState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South ChinaSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVideo-assisted thoracoscopic surgery has been identified as priori choice compared with open approaches in esophageal cancer surgery. With the developments in the

methodsThe clinicopathological characteristics of patients who received RAMIE or TLMIE with modern two-field lymph node dissection in Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between Jan 2016 to Jan 2018 were retrospectively retrieved. The 1:1 propensity score match analysis was performed to compare the short-term effectiveness and safety between the two groups.

resultsTwo hundred and fifteen esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients received RAMIE (101 patients) or TLMIE (114 patients) were included in the analysis. After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 108 patients (54 pairs) who received RAMIE or TLMIE displayed no significant variance in baseline clinicopathological characteristics. No significant difference in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, number of resected lymph nodes, and R0 resection rates were observed between the matched groups. However, the recurrent laryngeal nerve protection was better in RAMIE group (P=0.021). Nevertheless, both the incidences of common postoperative complications and length of ICU (hospital) stay were similar in two groups. The average total (P=0.009) and daily (P=0.028) expenses of RAMIE were higher.

conclusionsIn general, RAMIE could benefit patients by providing better recurrent laryngeal nerve protection. In order to promote the applications of RAMIE, more efforts should be made to reduce the costs by the social and medical insurance agencies.

Indexed as

Esophageal cancerlaparoscopyrobot-assisted esophagectomythoracoscopy

Identifiers

PMID31656660
PMCPMC6790445
OpenAlexW2978215666

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.