Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34089109›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of surgical oncology2021

Complete Mesocolic Excision and D3 Lymphadenectomy versus Conventional Colectomy for Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Tamara Díaz-Vico, María Fernández-Hevia, Aida Suárez-Sánchez, Carmen García-Gutiérrez, Luka Mihic-Góngora, Daniel Fernández-Martínez, José Antonio Álvarez-Pérez, Jorge Luis Otero-Díez, José Electo Granero-Trancón, Luis Joaquín García-Flórez

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of surgical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tamara Díaz-VicoDivision of General Surgery, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (HUCA), Avenida de Roma s/n, 33011, Oviedo, Spain. tamara.diaz.vico@gmail.com.
María Fernández-HeviaDivision of General Surgery, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (HUCA), Avenida de Roma s/n, 33011, Oviedo, Spain.
Aida Suárez-SánchezDivision of General Surgery, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (HUCA), Avenida de Roma s/n, 33011, Oviedo, Spain.
Carmen García-GutiérrezDivision of General Surgery, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (HUCA), Avenida de Roma s/n, 33011, Oviedo, Spain.
Luka Mihic-GóngoraDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (HUCA), Oviedo, Asturias, Spain.
Daniel Fernández-MartínezDivision of General Surgery, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (HUCA), Avenida de Roma s/n, 33011, Oviedo, Spain.
José Antonio Álvarez-PérezDivision of General Surgery, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (HUCA), Avenida de Roma s/n, 33011, Oviedo, Spain.
Jorge Luis Otero-DíezDivision of General Surgery, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (HUCA), Avenida de Roma s/n, 33011, Oviedo, Spain.
José Electo Granero-TrancónDivision of General Surgery, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (HUCA), Avenida de Roma s/n, 33011, Oviedo, Spain.
Luis Joaquín García-FlórezDivision of General Surgery, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (HUCA), Avenida de Roma s/n, 33011, Oviedo, Spain.
Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias · ESGobierno del Principado de Asturias · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundsPrevious systematic reviews suggest that the implementation of 'complete mesocolon excision' (CME) for colon tumors entails better specimen quality but with limited long-term outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the pathological, perioperative, and oncological results of CME with conventional surgery (CS) in primary colon cancer.

methodsEmbase, MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases were searched using Medical Subject Headings for CME and D3 lymphadenectomy. The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

resultsA total of 18,989 patients from 27 studies were included. Postoperative complications were higher in the CME group (relative risk [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.22, I

conclusionsLimited evidence suggests that CME improves oncological outcomes with a higher postoperative adverse events rate but no increase in anastomotic leak rate or perioperative mortality, compared with CS.

Indexed as

Colonic NeoplasmsLaparoscopyMesocolonColectomyHumansLymph Node ExcisionNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID34089109
OpenAlexW3165286030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.