Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32300209›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer based on propensity score matching: short-term outcomes at a high-capacity center.

Shan-Ping Ye, Jun Shi, Dong-Ning Liu, Qun-Guang Jiang, Xiong Lei, Bo Tang, Peng-Hui He, Wei-Quan Zhu, He-Chun Tang, Tai-Yuan Li

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shan-Ping YeDepartment of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, 330006, China.
Jun ShiDepartment of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, 330006, China.
Dong-Ning LiuDepartment of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, 330006, China.
Qun-Guang JiangDepartment of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, 330006, China.
Xiong LeiDepartment of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, 330006, China.
Bo TangDepartment of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, 330006, China.
Peng-Hui HeDepartment of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, 330006, China.
Wei-Quan ZhuDepartment of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, 330006, China.
He-Chun TangDepartment of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, 330006, China.
Tai-Yuan LiDepartment of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, 330006, China. litaiyuanyfy@sina.com.
First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University · CNNanchang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reports in the field of robotic surgery for gastric cancer are increasing. However, studies only on patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) are lacking. This retrospective study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) and laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC. From December 2014 to November 2019, 683 consecutive patients with AGC underwent mini-invasive assisted distal gastrectomy. Propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to reduce patient selection bias. Short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. The clinical features were well matched in the PSM cohort. Compared with the LADG group, the RADG group was associated with less operative blood loss, a lower rate of postoperative blood transfusion, less volume of abdominal drainage, less time to remove abdominal drainage tube, retrieved more lymph node, and lower rates of surgical complications and pancreatic fistula (P <0.05). However, the time to recovery bowel function, the length of postoperative stay, the rates of other subgroups of complications and unplanned readmission were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05). This study suggests that RADG is a safe and feasible technique with better short-term outcomes than LADG for AGC.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBlood Loss, SurgicalFeasibility StudiesFemaleGastrectomyHospitals, High-VolumeHumansLaparoscopyLymph Node ExcisionMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPatient ReadmissionPostoperative Complications

Identifiers

PMID32300209
PMCPMC7162916
OpenAlexW3016494020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.