Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32624566›Full record

ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2020

Comparison on the Efficacy of Double Tract Gastric Interposition Reconstruction Versus Jejunal Interposition Reconstruction After Proximal Gastrectomy.

Chao Yue, Rui Peng, Wei Wei, Bin Zhou, Xu Wen, Rongmin Gu, Xuezhi Ming, Gang Li, Huanqiu Chen

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chao YueDepartment of General Surgery, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Rui PengDepartment of General Surgery, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Wei WeiDepartment of General Surgery, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Bin ZhouDepartment of General Surgery, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Xu WenDepartment of General Surgery, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Rongmin GuDepartment of General Surgery, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Xuezhi MingDepartment of General Surgery, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Gang LiDepartment of General Surgery, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Huanqiu ChenDepartment of General Surgery, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Nanjing Medical University · CNJiangsu Cancer Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND This study aimed to compare the efficacy of antrum-preserving double tract gastric interposition reconstruction (ADGR) versus antrum-preserving double tract jejunal interposition reconstruction (ADJR) after proximal gastrectomy (PG). MATERIAL AND METHODS In a retrospective study, 62 cases of proximal gastric cancer undergoing proximal gastrectomy were divided into an ADJR group (n=32) and an ADGR group (n=30) according to reconstruction methods. Perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications were compared between the 2 groups, and the changes in hemoglobin (Hb), total protein (TP), body weight, and quality of life (QOL) were observed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Endoscopy was given at 12 months postoperatively for assessing reflux esophagitis and residual food. RESULTS Differences were indistinct in the 2 groups regarding the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative length of stay (LOS), first flatus time, and postoperative complications (P>0.05). At 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after operation, no evident differences were shown between the 2 groups regarding weight loss and Visick scores (P>0.05). Compared with the ADJR group, the Hb level at 6 and 12 months after operation and TP level at 12 months after operation were increased markedly in the ADGR group (P<0.05). No apparent difference was detected between the 2 groups in reflux esophagitis (P=0.467). The incidence of residual food in the ADGR group was significantly lower than that in the ADJR group (6.67% versus 31.25%, P=0.014). CONCLUSIONS ADGR was superior to ADJR in improving nutritional status and preventing residual food of patients with proximal gastric cancer after proximal gastrectomy.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAgedAnastomosis, SurgicalFemaleGastrectomyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPlastic Surgery ProceduresPostoperative ComplicationsQuality of LifeRetrospective StudiesStomach NeoplasmsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID32624566
PMCPMC7362707
OpenAlexW3038225598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.