Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34422658›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2021

Safety and Efficacy of Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastrectomy in Patients With Advanced Gastric Cancer Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Meta-Analysis.

Xu-Liang Liao, Xian-Wen Liang, Hua-Yang Pang, Kun Yang, Xin-Zu Chen, Xiao-Long Chen, Kai Liu, Lin-Yong Zhao, Wei-Han Zhang, Jian-Kun Hu

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. 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.

Xu-Liang LiaoDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu, China.
Xian-Wen LiangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu, China.
Hua-Yang PangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu, China.
Kun YangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu, China.
Xin-Zu ChenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu, China.
Xiao-Long ChenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu, China.
Kai LiuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu, China.
Lin-Yong ZhaoDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu, China.
Wei-Han ZhangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu, China.
Jian-Kun HuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, and Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu, China.
State Key Laboratory of BiotherapySichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven the expanding clinical applications of laparoscopic surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer treatment, there is an emerging need to summarize the few evidences that evaluated the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

methodsFrom January 1 to 2, 2021, we searched Ovid Embase, PubMed, Cochrane central register Trials (Ovid), and web of science to find relevant studies published in English, and two authors independently performed literature screening, quality assessment of the included studies, data extraction, and data analysis. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021228845).

resultsThe initial search retrieved 1567 articles, and 6 studies were finally included in the meta-analysis review, which comprised 2 randomized control trials and 4 observational studies involving 288 laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and 416 open gastrectomy (OG) AGC patients treated with NAC. For intraoperative conditions, R0 resection rate, blood transfusion, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph nodes dissected, proximal margin, and distal margin were comparable between LG group and open OG group. For postoperative short-term clinical outcomes, LG has significantly less postoperative complications (OR = 0.65, 95%CI: 0.42-1.00, p = 0.05) and shorter postoperative time to first aerofluxus (WMD = -0.57d, 95%CI: -0.89-0.25, p = 0.0004) than OG, and anastomotic leakage, pulmonary infection, pleural effusion, surgical site infection, thrombosis, intestinal obstruction, peritoneal effusion or abscess formation, postoperative time to first defecation, postoperative time to first liquid diet, and postoperative length of stay were comparable between the two groups. For postoperative survival outcomes, there were no significant differences in disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between the two groups.

conclusionThe available evidences indicated that LG is an effective and feasible technology for the treatment of AGC patients treated with NAC, and LG patients have much less postoperative complications and faster bowel function recovery than OG patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database (identifier, CRD42021228845).

Indexed as

advanced gastric cancerlaparoscopic gastrectomyneoadjuvant chemotherapyopen gastrectomysafety and efficacy

Identifiers

PMID34422658
PMCPMC8377369
OpenAlexW3187173955

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.