SynthesisMedicine2021
Effectiveness and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery vs conventional multi-port laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of gastric diseases: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05035446 (A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study of the Short-term Efficacy of Single-hole Plus One-hole Total Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Five-hole Total Laparoscopic Surgery for Distal Gastric Cancer), which is not on this 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.
A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study of the Short-term Efficacy of Single-hole Plus One-hole Total Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Five-hole Total Laparoscopic Surgery for Distal Gastric Cancer
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of conventional laparoscopic surgery and single-incision laparoscopic surgery in gastric cancer treatment: Outcomes and prognosis.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Short-term outcomes of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for total gastrectomy: a single-institute experience.BMC surgery · 2023Article
- Comparison of short-term outcomes between single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for distal gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial.Translational cancer research · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
abstractThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) and conventional multi-port laparoscopic (CMPLS) surgery in the treatment of gastric diseases.The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Chinese Biomedical Literature databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case control studies on the use of RPLS vs conventional multi-port laparoscopic surgery in treating gastric diseases from their inception until March 10, 2019. The evaluated outcomes were the operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, number of dissected lymph nodes, postoperative complications, and conversions. All of these were compared using Stata software version 12.0.A total of 18 studies were included, which involved 2938 patients. In studies referring to the comparison between RPLS and CMPLS in treating gastric diseases, the former showed significantly inferior in terms of operative time (P = .011) and number of dissected lymph nodes (P = .031); but superior results in terms of the estimated blood loss (P = .000) and length of hospital stay (P = .001) than the latter did; however, the rates of postoperative complications (P = .830) and conversions (P = .102) were not statistically significant between the 2 groups.RPLS and CMPLS showed comparable effectiveness and safety in the treatment of gastric diseases in our meta-analysis. Based on the current evidence, we believe that RPLS is an efficacious surgical alternative to CMPLS in the management of gastric diseases because of the shorter hospital stay and reduced blood loss. However, large-scale, well-designed, multicenter studies are needed to further confirm the results of this study.
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.