SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2021
Subtotal versus total gastrectomy for remnant gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSubtotal gastrectomy (SG) has become a general option for distal gastric cancer. However, the availability of an organ-preserving approach for the treatment of remnant gastric cancer (RGC) is still controversial. Thus, the objective of the present study was to assess the safety and efficacy of SG for RGC by integrating data from published articles.
methodsWe searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for studies that compared SG versus total gastrectomy (TG) for RGC published from the inception of the databases until May 2020. A meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager Version 5.0 software program from the Cochrane Collaboration.
resultsThree retrospective cohort studies with 144 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed that the operative time of the SG group was significantly shorter than that in the TG group (MD: -34.84. 95% CI: -59.97- -9.71, P = 0.007). There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss (MD: -109.19. 95% CI: -240.37-21.99, P =0.10), length of postoperative hospital stay (MD: 0.40. 95% CI: -3.03-3.83, P = 0.82), postoperative complications (RR: 1.41. 95% CI: 0.76-2.63, P = 0.28), or recurrence (RR: 2.33, 95% CI: 0.48-11.44, P = 0.30). SG for RGC tended to be correlated with favorable 5-year overall survival; however, the association was not statistically significant (HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.63-1.26, P = 0.51).
conclusionOrgan-preserving approaches such as SG may be a safe and feasible treatment option for early-stage RGC.
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.