Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33282395›Full record

ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2020

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) after minimally invasive and open esophagectomy.

John J Brady, Tadeusz D Witek, James D Luketich, Inderpal S Sarkaria

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Health-related quality of life after esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2022
    Review
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

4 authors.

John J BradyDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Tadeusz D WitekDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
James D LuketichDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Inderpal S SarkariaDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Esophagectomy for esophageal malignancies remains an operation with significant potential morbidity and mortality. However, surgical outcomes continue to improve over time and focus has shifted toward not just good outcomes, but quality of life post operatively. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) focus of quality of life measures via validated patient surveys has increasingly become a significant focus. While PROs do have their limitations, they represent a glimpse into the symptomatology, quality of life, and well-being of a patient undergoing a procedure with inherent morbidity. Working to improve outcomes from the perspective of the patient is not a new concept, but has becoming increasingly relevant as surgical quality for all procedures improves. The optimal approach to esophagectomy is controversial. Minimally invasive approaches attempt to avoid laparotomy and thoracotomy with the thought of improving post-operative quality of life by mitigating complications related to those open surgical approaches. The data in favor of laparoscopy and thoracoscopy is quite strong and multiple randomized controlled trials exist in this realm supporting minimally invasive approaches with regards to quality of life outcomes and more rapid return to patient's preoperative baseline. The data in favor of a robotic approach for esophagectomy is not quite as robust, but more studies show that these approaches mirror the benefits of the laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approaches without robotic assistance.

Indexed as

esophageal cancerEsophagectomyminimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE)patient reported outcomes (PROs)robotic esophagectomy

Identifiers

PMID33282395
PMCPMC7711419

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.