ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2019
Efficacy of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Updated German guideline on diagnosis and treatment of squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.United European gastroenterology journal · 2024Guideline
- Robotic vs. laparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a weighted short- and long-term outcomes analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- German guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of squamous-cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus-version 4.0.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Review
- Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy vs. Open Esophagectomy: A Retrospective Propensity Score Matched Comparison.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Article
- [Comparison of B-NDGNan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2020Article
- Early Respiratory Impairment and Pneumonia after Hybrid Laparoscopically Assisted Esophagectomy-A Comparison with the Open Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Current status of esophageal cancer treatment.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2020Article
- Propensity score-matched comparison between open and minimal invasive hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe first line treatment regimen for esophageal cancer is still surgical resection and the choice of surgical scheme depends on surgeon. Now the efficacy comparison of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) is still controversial.
aimTo compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of HMIE and OE in patients with esophageal cancer.
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for related articles. The odds ratio (OR) or standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to evaluate the effectiveness of HMIE and OE.
resultsSeventeen studies including a total of 2397 patients were selected. HMIE was significantly associated with less blood loss (SMD = -0.43, 95%CI: -0.66, -0.20;
conclusionCompared with the OE, HMIE shows less blood loss and pulmonary complications. However, further studies are necessary to evaluate the long-term oncologic outcomes of HMIE.
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.