Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33680675›Full record

ReviewPlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2021

Immediate Lymphatic Reconstruction: Technical Points and Literature Review.

Michelle Coriddi, Babak Mehrara, Roman Skoracki, Dhruv Singhal, Joseph H Dayan

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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.

Michelle CoriddiReconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, N.Y.
Babak MehraraReconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, N.Y.
Roman SkorackiDepartment of Plastic Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Dhruv SinghalDepartment of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Mass.
Joseph H DayanReconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, N.Y.
The Ohio State University · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent studies have provided evidence that lymphovenous bypass-microsurgical re-routing of divided lymphatics to an adjacent vein-performed at the time of lymph node dissection decreases the rate of lymphedema development. Immediate lymphatic reconstruction in this setting is technically demanding, and there is a paucity of literature describing the details of the surgical procedure. In this report, we review the literature supporting immediate lymphatic reconstruction and provide technical details to demystify the operation for surgeons who wish to provide this option to their patients.

Identifiers

PMID33680675
PMCPMC7929616
OpenAlexW3135233322

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.