ArticleFrontiers in oncology2020
Comparison of NOSES and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery in Colorectal Cancer: Bacteriological and Oncological Concerns.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multi-database bibliometric analysis and cross-database comparison of NOSES research in colorectal cancer: integrated evidence from WoSCC and PubMed.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Natural orifice versus transabdominal specimen extraction in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: meta-analysis.BJS open · 2022Pooled it
- A randomized controlled trial comparing robotic NOSES versus robotic TME for Mid-rectal cancer: short-term oncological and perioperative outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Trial
- Perioperative safety evaluation of intersphincteric resection combined with rectal eversion and total extra-abdominal resection: a prospective randomized controlled trial.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Trial
- Observational
- Quality of life, anxiety and depression risks after natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer patients: a prospective two-centre case-matched study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Application of double purse-string anastomosis in optimizing laparoscopic NOSES surgery for rectal cancer under the payment system of DRGs.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Review
- Short-term outcomes of Transrectal Natural Orifice Specimen extraction compared with conventional minimally invasive surgery for selected patients with colorectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis and literature review.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Bacteriological and oncological safety of complete laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer without incision anastomosis based on propensity-matched scores.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023Article
- Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional robotic resection for patients with colorectal neoplasms.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Carbon nanoparticle-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery with left colic artery preservation: a retrospective study.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2022Article
- Is Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery Really Safe in Radical Surgery for Colorectal Cancer?Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
- Application of the natural orifice specimen extraction surgery I-type E method combined with 3D laparoscopy in sphincter-preserving surgery of low rectal cancer.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Laparoscopic radical transverse colectomy with transrectal specimen extraction: A novel natural orifice specimen extraction procedure: A case report.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.