Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32534587›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2020

Laparoscopic versus open approach in gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review.

Zhipeng Zhu, Lulu Li, Jiuhua Xu, Weipeng Ye, Junjie Zeng, Borong Chen, Zhengjie Huang

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors.

Zhipeng ZhuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Xiamen Cancer Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, 55 Zhen Hai Road, Si Ming District, Xiamen, 361003, Fujian, People's Republic of China.
Lulu LiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Xiamen Cancer Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, 55 Zhen Hai Road, Si Ming District, Xiamen, 361003, Fujian, People's Republic of China.
Jiuhua XuDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350004, Fujian, People's Republic of China.
Weipeng YeDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350004, Fujian, People's Republic of China.
Junjie ZengDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Xiamen Cancer Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, 55 Zhen Hai Road, Si Ming District, Xiamen, 361003, Fujian, People's Republic of China.
Borong ChenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Xiamen Cancer Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, 55 Zhen Hai Road, Si Ming District, Xiamen, 361003, Fujian, People's Republic of China.
Zhengjie HuangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Xiamen Cancer Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, 55 Zhen Hai Road, Si Ming District, Xiamen, 361003, Fujian, People's Republic of China. huangzhengjie@xmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6298-8112

Funding

Project of Xiamen Scientific and Technological Plan No. 3502Z20194005 ,3502Z20184020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdditional studies comparing laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) versus open gastrectomy (OG) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) have been published, and it is necessary to update the systematic review of this subject.

objectiveWe conducted the meta-analysis to find some proof for the use of LG in AGC and evaluate whether LG is an alternative treatment for AGC.

methodRandomized controlled trials (RCT) and high-quality retrospective studies (NRCT) compared LG and OG for AGC, which were published in English between January 2010 and May 2019, were search in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Knowledge by three authors independently and thoroughly. Some primary endpoints were compared between the two groups, including intraoperative time, intraoperative blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, first flatus, first oral intake, first out of bed, post-operative hospital stay, postoperative morbidity and mortality, rate of disease recurrence, and 5-year over survival (5-y OS). Besides, considering for this 10-year dramatical surgical material development between 2010 and 2019, we furtherly make the same analysis based on recent studies published between 2016 and 2019.

resultThirty-six studies were enrolled in this systematic review and meta-analysis, including 5714 cases in LAG and 6094 cases in OG. LG showed longer intraoperative time, less intraoperative blood loss, and quicker recovery after operations. The number of harvested lymph nodes, hospital mortality, and tumor recurrence were similar. Postoperative morbidity and 5-y OS favored LG. Furthermore, the systemic analysis of recent studies published between 2016 and 2019 revealed similar result.

conclusionA positive trend was indicated towards LG. LG can be performed as an alternative to OG for AGC.

Indexed as

Blood Loss, SurgicalGastrectomyHospital MortalityHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayLymph NodesNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPostoperative PeriodRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective StudiesStomach NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeAdvanced gastric cancerGastrectomyLaparoscopyMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32534587
PMCPMC7293787

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.