Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33963213›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Results of a German wide survey towards current surgical approach in early stage cervical cancer NOGGO MONITOR 11.

Robert Armbrust, Frank Chen, Rolf Richter, Mustafa Zela Muallem, Alexander Mustea, Bernd Holthaus, Jalid Sehouli

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. 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

7 authors.

Robert ArmbrustDepartment of Gynecology with Center for Oncological Surgery, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Virchow Campus Clinic, Charité Medical University, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. robert.armbrust@charite.de.
Frank ChenDepartment of Gynecology with Center for Oncological Surgery, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Virchow Campus Clinic, Charité Medical University, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Rolf RichterDepartment of Gynecology with Center for Oncological Surgery, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Virchow Campus Clinic, Charité Medical University, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Mustafa Zela MuallemDepartment of Gynecology with Center for Oncological Surgery, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Virchow Campus Clinic, Charité Medical University, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Alexander MusteaDepartment of Gynecology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Bernd HolthausDepartment of Gynecology, Kardinal Von Galen Kliniken Damme, Working Group Gynecological Endoscopy, Damme, Germany.
Jalid SehouliDepartment of Gynecology with Center for Oncological Surgery, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Virchow Campus Clinic, Charité Medical University, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become the standard approach in early stage cervical cancer (ECC). However, the recently published "LACC" trial and even others could show inferior PFS and OS of MIS compared to open radical hysterectomy. The results led to a widespread debate about the best surgical approach in ECC. The present survey aimed to get first insights after publication. NOGGO and AGE conducted a nationwide digital survey among 186 Gynecological Cancer Centers. Descriptive statistics and t-tests were performed using SPSS. A majority of the centers were of high expertise and/or experience in treatment of ECC and were highly aware of the LACC trial results. Trial quality and scientific value were rated as very good/good. However, still 40% would not change the standard of care to open surgery. Centers with higher volume and participating in clinical trials were more likely to change. This survey represents insights after the surprising results of recently published trials towards the surgical approach of ECC. There still seems to be a high need of future trials and possible explanations for the unexpected worse outcomes in the MIS group.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesAdultAgedFemaleGermanyHumansMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresNeoplasm StagingUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID33963213
PMCPMC8105313

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.