Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33724337›Full record

SynthesisBJS open2021

Difference in surgical outcomes of rectal cancer by study design: meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, case-matched studies, and cohort studies.

N Hoshino, T Sakamoto, K Hida, Y Takahashi, H Okada, K Obama, T Nakayama

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJS open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

N HoshinoDepartment of Health Informatics, School of Public Health, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
T SakamotoDepartment of Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
K HidaDepartment of Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Y TakahashiDepartment of Health Informatics, School of Public Health, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
H OkadaDepartment of Health Informatics, School of Public Health, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
K ObamaDepartment of Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
T NakayamaDepartment of Health Informatics, School of Public Health, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Kyoto University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRCTs are considered the standard in surgical research, whereas case-matched studies and propensity score matching studies are conducted as an alternative option. Both study designs have been used to investigate the potential superiority of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. However, no conclusion has been reached regarding whether there are differences in findings according to study design. This study aimed to examine similarities and differences in findings relating to robotic surgery for rectal cancer by study design.

methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify RCTs, case-matched studies, and cohort studies that compared robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Primary outcomes were incidence of postoperative overall complications, incidence of anastomotic leakage, and postoperative mortality. Meta-analyses were performed for each study design using a random-effects model.

resultsFifty-nine articles were identified and reviewed. No differences were observed in incidence of anastomotic leakage, mortality, rate of positive circumferential resection margins, conversion rate, and duration of operation by study design. With respect to the incidence of postoperative overall complications and duration of hospital stay, the superiority of robotic surgery was most evident in cohort studies (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95 per cent c.i. 0.74 to 0.92, P < 0.001; mean difference (MD) -1.11 (95 per cent c.i. -1.86 to -0.36) days, P = 0.004; respectively), and least evident in RCTs (RR 1.12, 0.91 to 1.38, P = 0.27; MD -0.28 (-1.44 to 0.88) days, P = 0.64; respectively).

conclusionResults of case-matched studies were often similar to those of RCTs in terms of outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer. However, case-matched studies occasionally overestimated the effects of interventions compared with RCTs.

Indexed as

Research DesignRobotic Surgical ProceduresCase-Control StudiesCohort StudiesHumansLength of StayPostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRectal NeoplasmsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID33724337
PMCPMC7962725
OpenAlexW3138363617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.