Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34449473›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2021

Meta-analysis of the efficacy of Da Vinci robotic or laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer.

Zibo Zhang, Xiaolin Zhang, Yu Liu, Yong Li, Qun Zhao, Liqiao Fan, Zhidong Zhang, Dong Wang, Xuefeng Zhao, Bibo Tan

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zibo ZhangHebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital and Hebei Provincial Tumor Hospital, Third Department of Surgery, Shijiazhuang, Hebe, China.
Xiaolin ZhangHebei Medical University, School of Public Health, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.
Yu LiuHebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital and Hebei Provincial Tumor Hospital, Third Department of Surgery, Shijiazhuang, Hebe, China.
Yong LiHebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital and Hebei Provincial Tumor Hospital, Third Department of Surgery, Shijiazhuang, Hebe, China.
Qun ZhaoHebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital and Hebei Provincial Tumor Hospital, Third Department of Surgery, Shijiazhuang, Hebe, China.
Liqiao FanHebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital and Hebei Provincial Tumor Hospital, Third Department of Surgery, Shijiazhuang, Hebe, China.
Zhidong ZhangHebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital and Hebei Provincial Tumor Hospital, Third Department of Surgery, Shijiazhuang, Hebe, China.
Dong WangHebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital and Hebei Provincial Tumor Hospital, Third Department of Surgery, Shijiazhuang, Hebe, China.
Xuefeng ZhaoHebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital and Hebei Provincial Tumor Hospital, Third Department of Surgery, Shijiazhuang, Hebe, China.
Bibo TanHebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital and Hebei Provincial Tumor Hospital, Third Department of Surgery, Shijiazhuang, Hebe, China.
Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University · CNHebei Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic-assisted gastrectomy has been used for treating gastric cancer since 2002. This meta-analysis was conducted to systematically evaluate the efficacy of Da Vinci robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy (RDG) or laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy (LDG) in patients with gastric cancer.

methodsWe conducted searches in domestic and foreign databases, and collected literature in Chinese and English on the efficacy of RDG and LDG for gastric cancer that have been published since the inception of the database. RevMan 5.4.1 was used for meta-analysis and drawing and Stata14.0 was used for publication bias analysis.

resultsA total of 3293 patients in 15 studies were included, including 1193 patients in the RDG group and 2100 patients in the LDG groups respectively. The meta-analysis showed that intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower and the number of resected lymph nodes was higher in the RDG group compared to that in the LDG group. In addition, the times to first postoperative food intake and postoperative hospital stay were shortened, and there was a longer length of distal resection margin and prolonged duration of operation. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups with respect to the first postoperative anal exhaust time, length of proximal resection margin, total postoperative complication rate, postoperative anastomotic leakage rate, incidence of postoperative gastric emptying disorder, pancreatic fistula rate, recurrence rate, and mortality rate.

conclusionRDG is a safe and feasible treatment option for gastric cancer, and it is non-inferior or even superior to LDG with respect to therapeutic efficacy and radical treatment.

Indexed as

Blood Loss, SurgicalClinical Trials as TopicGastrectomyHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayLymph Node ExcisionOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesRobotic Surgical ProceduresStomach Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID34449473
PMCPMC8389896
OpenAlexW3195942538

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.