ReviewJournal of minimal access surgery
Minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy and transoral video-assisted thyroidectomy: A comparison of two systematic reviews.
Review in Journal of minimal access surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Status of thyroid surgery-related medical disputes in China.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Mini-invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy vs robot-assisted transaxillary thryoidectomy: analisys and comparison of safety and outcomes.Updates in surgery · 2024Observational
- En bloc resection of total thyroid and bilateral central compartment lymph nodesFrontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe compared two systematic reviews, one focusing on transoral video-assisted thyroidectomy (TOVAT) and the other on minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy (MIVAT), to highlight the pros and cons that can determine the choice of one or the other procedure. MATERIALS AND
methodsPubMed, Scopus and ISI Web of Science databases were searched for relevant articles published from 2000 to June 2018. Both searches were performed using the same keywords. All articles describing human surgical case series of any size were included, while the following were excluded: articles published in languages other than English, case reports, reviews, early cadaver and animal studies and old reports of cases now included in more recent works. Application of the above selection criteria yielded 151 articles on TOVAT and 246 on MIVAT. Of these, 34 articles were selected for inclusion in the present study: 17 for the TOVAT group and 17 for the MIVAT group. The comparison was made considering the most common variables used in evaluating thyroid surgery procedures. The statistical methods used were Cohen's delta, Student's t-test and the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test.
resultsThe variable 'operative time' was found to show a very large effect size, and 'hospital stay' also differed significantly between the MIVAT and TOVAT groups.
conclusionsTOVAT and MIVAT should not be considered in competition with each other, but seen simply as alternative choices. Both appear to be safe methods, comparable in terms of post-operative complications, although the main reason for using TOVAT seems to be purely aesthetic.
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.