Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34342706›Full record

ReviewCurrent oncology reports2021

Update on Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches for Rectal Cancer.

Leonardo E Garcia, James Taylor, Chady Atallah

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current oncology reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  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

3 authors.

Leonardo E GarciaDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe Street, Blalock, Baltimore, MD, 656, USA.
James TaylorDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe Street, Blalock, Baltimore, MD, 656, USA.
Chady AtallahDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe Street, Blalock, Baltimore, MD, 656, USA. catalla3@jhmi.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0623-6271

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review aims to clarify the current role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer, highlighting short- and long-term outcomes from the latest trials and studies. RECENT

findingsData from previous trials has been conflicting, with some failing to demonstrate non-inferiority of laparoscopic surgical resection of rectal cancer compared to an open approach and others demonstrating similar clinical outcomes. Robot-assisted surgery was thought to be a promising solution to the challenges faced by laparoscopic surgery, and even though the only randomized controlled trial to date comparing these two techniques did not show superiority of robot-assisted surgery over laparoscopy, more recent retrospective data suggests a statistically significant higher negative circumferential resection margin rate, decreased frequency of conversion to open, and less sexual and urinary complications. Minimally invasive surgery techniques for resection of rectal cancer, particularly robot-assisted, offer clear short-term peri-operative benefits over an open approach; however, current data has yet to display non-inferiority in terms of oncological outcomes.

Indexed as

Minimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresHumansLaparoscopyMargins of ExcisionPostoperative ComplicationsProctectomyQuality of LifeRectal NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopyMinimally invasive surgeryRectal cancerRobotrobot-assistedTotal mesorectal excision

Identifiers

PMID34342706

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.