Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32384898›Full record

SynthesisJournal of ovarian research2020

The value of systematic lymphadenectomy during debulking surgery in the treatment of ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Qingqing Lin, Wenchao Liu, Song Xu, Juan Li, Jinyi Tong

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of ovarian research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. ImmunoPET of Ovarian and Pancreatic Cancer with AR9.6, a Novel MUC16-Targeted Therapeutic Antibody.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2022
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qingqing LinDepartment of Gynecology, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 261 Huansha Rd, Hangzhou City, 310006, Zhejiang Province, China.
Wenchao LiuDepartment of Neurosurgery, First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang, China.
Song XuDepartment of Gynecology, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 261 Huansha Rd, Hangzhou City, 310006, Zhejiang Province, China.
Juan LiDepartment of Gynecology, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 261 Huansha Rd, Hangzhou City, 310006, Zhejiang Province, China.
Jinyi TongDepartment of Gynecology, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 261 Huansha Rd, Hangzhou City, 310006, Zhejiang Province, China. tongjinyi252@zju.edu.cn.
Zhejiang University · CNHangzhou First People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe therapeutic value of systematic lymphadenectomy during debulking surgery for ovarian cancer remains controversial. We conduct this meta-analysis to evaluate the significance of systematic lymphadenectomy in patients treated with optimal cytoreduction for ovarian cancer.

methodThe PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched up to October 2019. Only English-language publications of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the role of systematic lymphadenectomy in patients with ovarian cancer were selected for this analysis. For overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), pooled hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated; for complications rate, we calculated pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using both the I

resultsFour RCTs involving 1607 patients were included in the present analysis. There was no difference in OS between systematic lymphadenectomy and unsystematic lymphadenectomy (HR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.94, 1.07; p = 0.90). Similarly, no significant difference was observed in PFS between these two groups (HR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.87, 1.08; p = 0.62). And postoperative complications occurred more frequently in the systematic lymphadenectomy group (RR = 1.50; 95% CI = 1.34, 1.68; p < 0.00001).

conclusionSystematic lymphadenectomy in patients with optimally cytoreduced ovarian cancer was not associated with longer overall or progression-free survival than unsystematic lymphadenectomy and was associated with a higher incidence of postoperative complications.

Indexed as

Disease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansLymph Node ExcisionOvarian NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicComplicationsMeta-analysisOvarian cancerOverall survivalProgression-free survivalSystematic lymphadenectomy

Identifiers

PMID32384898
PMCPMC7206784
OpenAlexW3023945600

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.