Comment on: Total extraperitoneal endoscopic hernioplasty (TEP) versus Lichtenstein hernioplasty: a systematic review by updated traditional and cumulative meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Update of the international HerniaSurge guidelines for groin hernia management.BJS open · 2023
   Article
2. Evaluation and Comparison on the Results of Totally Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Surgery under General and Spinal Anesthesia for Inguinal Hernia.Advanced biomedical research · 2022
   Article
3. Comment to: analysing topics using different methods promotes constructive debates. Author's reply.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020
   Article
4. Numbers speak louder and communicate a clearer message than words: author's reply.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020
   Article
5. Analysing topics using different methods promotes constructive debates: authors' reply.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Total extraperitoneal endoscopic hernioplasty (TEP) versus Lichtenstein hernioplasty: a systematic review by updated traditional and cumulative meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials.2019

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as