SynthesisMedicine2020
Bayesian network analysis of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Radical Laparoscopic Surgery and Conventional Open Surgery on Surgical Outcomes, Complications, and Prognosis in Elderly Patients with Bladder Cancer.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Comparative study on the clinical effect of preparing neobladder with different lengths of ileum.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe have performed the direct and network meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted (RARC) versus laparoscopic (LRC) versus open radical cystectomy (ORC) for bladder cancer (BCa).
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase was performed up until Dec 20, 2019. Outcome indexes include oncologic outcomes (the recurrence rate, mortality), pathologic outcomes (lymph node yield (LNY), positive lymph node (PLN), positive surgical margins (PSM)), perioperative outcomes (operating time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion rate, the length of hospital stay (LOS) and the time to regular diet) and postoperative 90-day complications.
resultsWe have analyzed 6 RCTs, 23 prospective studies, and 25 retrospective studies (54 articles: 6382 patients). On one hand, the direct meta-analysis shows RARC is better than LRC or ORC. On the other hand, the clinical effects of the recurrence rate, Morbidity, PSM, LNY, PLN, and postoperative 90-day complications of RARC, LRC and ORC are all no statistical significance by network meta-analysis. Moreover, the probability rank shows that the comprehensive rank of RARC is better than LRC or ORC. The clinical effects of OP, EBL, LOS, blood transfusion rate and the time to regular diet are all statistical significance by network meta-analysis. There are ORC > LRC > RARC in the EBL ranking. Patients with RARC exhibited a decrease of LOS compared to those with LRC or ORC. Patients with RARC exhibited a decrease in blood transfusion rate and the time to regular diet compared to those with ORC. Patients with ORC exhibited an increase of OP compared to those with RARC or LRC. The heterogeneity tests of most studies are < 50%. Most studies have no publication bias and the quality of the selected studies is good.
conclusionThe direct meta-analysis and network meta-analysis suggest that RARC is better than LRC or ORC according to comprehensive analysis. However, we need a large sample size and more high-quality studies to verify and improve in the further.
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.