ArticleBMC cancer2020
Comment on 'comparison of overall survival and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis'.
Article in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo discuss some inaccurate parts of a published systematic review and meta-analysis which was about comparison of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in overall survival and perioperative outcomes.
methodsNot applicable.
resultsThe study enrolled overlapping patient cohorts and patients with a variety of disease histologies, not specific for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. They also reported different conclusion for R0 resection of 2 approaches in result and discussion part. Some data should be revised through statistical method, which could be polled to analysis.
conclusionThe conclusion of this published systematic review and meta-analysis was not objective; therefor, the study may mislead readers, especially for those who just read the abstract of this study or not analysis this article in detail.
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.