SynthesisJournal of ovarian research2021
Comparison of the survival outcomes of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in treatment of early-stage ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of ovarian research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Laparoscopy in the Surgical Management of Gynecological Cancer: A Comprehensive Update.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery in borderline ovarian tumor and ovarian cancer: a retrospective comparative study.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2025Article
- The minimally invasive resection of port-site metastasis of ovarian cancer after laparoscopy with cutaneous integrity: a case report and literature review.BMC women's health · 2024Review
- Efficacy and safety of minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia for ovarian cancer.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Minimally Invasive Staging of Early-Stage Epithelial Ovarian Cancer versus Open Surgery in Terms of Feasibility and Safety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Surgery for Women With Early-Stage Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- miRNA-612 suppresses ovarian cancer cell tumorigenicity by downregulating NOB1.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
- The Transumbilical Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Extraperitoneal Approach for Pelvic and Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy: A Technique Note and Feasibility Study.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Complications in laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery: definitions, classifications, incidence and risk factors - an up-to-date review.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopy has been widely used for patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (eEOC). However, there is limited evidence regarding whether survival outcomes of laparoscopy are equivalent to those of laparotomy among patients with eEOC. The result of survival outcomes of laparoscopy is still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to analyze the survival outcomes of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the treatment of eEOC.
methodsAccording to the keywords, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for studies from January 1994 to January 2021. Studies comparing the efficacy and safety of laparoscopy versus laparotomy for patients with eEOC were assessed for eligibility. Only studies including outcomes of overall survival (OS) were enrolled. The meta-analysis was performed using Stata software (Version 12.0) and Review Manager (Version 5.2).
resultsA total of 6 retrospective non-random studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results indicated that there was no difference between two approaches for patients with eEOC in OS (HR = 0.6, P = 0.446), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.6, P = 0.137) and upstaging rate (OR = 1.18, P = 0.54). But the recurrence rate of laparoscopic surgery was lower than that of laparotomic surgery (OR = 0.48, P = 0.008).
conclusionsLaparoscopy and laparotomy appear to provide comparable overall survival and progression-free survival outcomes for patients with eEOC. Further high-quality studies are needed to enhance this statement.
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.