Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33234134›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2020

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jianglei Ma, Xiaoyao Li, Shifu Zhao, Ruifu Zhang, Dejun Yang

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
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 36 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Establishing the Learning Curve of Laparoscopic and Robotic Distal Gastrectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jianglei MaStudent of the Third Brigade, College of Basic Medical Sciences, Naval Medical University, No. 800 Xiangyin Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Xiaoyao LiStudent of the Third Brigade, College of Basic Medical Sciences, Naval Medical University, No. 800 Xiangyin Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Shifu ZhaoStudent of the Third Brigade, College of Basic Medical Sciences, Naval Medical University, No. 800 Xiangyin Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Ruifu ZhangStudent of the Third Brigade, College of Basic Medical Sciences, Naval Medical University, No. 800 Xiangyin Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Dejun YangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, No. 415 Fengyang Road, Huangpu District, Shanghai, 200003, China. yangdejun@smmu.edu.cn.
Shanghai Changzheng Hospital · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81772955Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai 17ZR1439300Scientific Research Program of Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and Family Planning 201640269
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo date, robotic surgery has been widely used worldwide. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) in gastric cancer patients to determine whether RG can replace laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

methodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was applied to perform the study. Pubmed, Cochrane Library, WanFang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP databases were comprehensively searched for studies published before May 2020 that compared RG with LG. Next, two independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The quality of the literature was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and the data analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Random effects or fixed effects models were applied according to heterogeneity.

resultsA total of 19 studies including 7275 patients were included in the meta-analyses, of which 4598 patients were in the LG group and 2677 in the RG group. Compared with LG, RG was associated with longer operative time (WMD = -32.96, 95% CI -42.08 ~ -23.84, P < 0.001), less blood loss (WMD = 28.66, 95% CI 18.59 ~ 38.73, P < 0.001), and shorter time to first flatus (WMD = 0.16 95% CI 0.06 ~ 0.27, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference between RG and LG in terms of the hospital stay (WMD = 0.23, 95% CI -0.53 ~ 0.98, P = 0.560), overall postoperative complication (OR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 ~ 1.25, P = 0.430), mortality (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 ~ 1.90, P = 0.450), the number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = -0.96, 95% CI -2.12 ~ 0.20, P = 0.100), proximal resection margin (WMD = -0.10, 95% CI -0.29 ~ 0.09, P = 0.300), and distal resection margin (WMD = 0.15, 95% CI -0.21 ~ 0.52, P = 0.410). No significant differences were found between the two treatments in overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 ~ 1.18, P = 0.640), recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 ~ 1.21, P = 0.530), and recurrence rate (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 ~ 1.21, P = 0.500).

conclusionsThe results of this study suggested that RG is as acceptable as LG in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. RG can be performed as effectively and safely as LG. Moreover, more randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques with rigorous study designs are still essential to evaluate the value of the robotic surgery for gastric cancer.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresStomach NeoplasmsChinaGastrectomyHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPostoperative ComplicationsPrognosisTreatment OutcomeGastrectomyGastric cancerLaparoscopicMeta-analysisRobotic

Identifiers

PMID33234134
PMCPMC7688002
OpenAlexW3106890198

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.