ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2020
The role of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: ESGE-SERGS position document and joint-statement.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the last two decades, minimal access techniques have gained widespread acceptance as an approach to radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Two recent studies, the randomised study by Ramirez et al. (2018) and the epidemiologic study by Melamed et al. (2018) found that minimally invasive surgery radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer was associated with shorter overall survival than open surgery. In this document we assess the importance of these two new studies and what their additional contribution is towards existing studies into the surgical approach to cervical cancer. Furthermore, we provide a consensus statement of the European Society Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) and the Society of European Robotic Gynaecological Surgery (SERGS) as to the position of minimal access techniques (both standard and robotic) in light of this new evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32696020PMC7363241What 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.