Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34540677›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2021

Efficacy of Omentum-Preserving Gastrectomy for Patients With Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Zonglin Li, Min Song, Yejiang Zhou, Huaiwu Jiang, Linxia Xu, Zhengchuan Hu, Yi Liu, Yifan Jiang, Xin Li

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
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 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Current debate in gastric cancer surgery: Omentectomy?World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zonglin LiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Min SongDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Yejiang ZhouDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Huaiwu JiangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Linxia XuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Zhengchuan HuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Yi LiuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Yifan JiangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Xin LiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University · CNSichuan Mianyang 404 Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComplete omentectomy is considered to be essential in the radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC), but its clinical benefit remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of omentum-preserving gastrectomy (OPG) for patients with GC.

methodsStudies comparing the surgical and oncological outcomes of OPG and gastrectomy with complete omentectomy (GCO) for GC up to March 2021 were systematically searched from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library. A pooled analysis was performed for the available data regarding the baseline features, surgical and oncological outcomes. The RevMan 5.3 software was used to perform the statistical analysis. Quality evaluation and publication bias were also conducted.

resultsNine studies with a total of 3335 patients (1372 in the OPG group and 1963 in the GCO group) undergoing gastrectomy were included. In the pooled analysis, the baseline data in two groups were all comparable (p > 0.05). However, the OPG group was associated with shorter operative time (MD = -18.67, 95% CI = -31.42 to -5.91, P = 0.004) and less intraoperative blood loss (MD = -38.09, 95% CI = -53.78 to -22.41, P < 0.00001) than the GCO group. However, the number of dissected lymph nodes (MD = 2.16, 95% CI = -0.61 to 4.93, P = 0.13), postoperative complications (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.15, p = 0.47), overall recurrence rate (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.66 to 1.06, p = 0.14), peritoneal recurrence rate (OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.65 to 1.29, p = 0.60), 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 0.86 to 2.27, p = 0.18), and 5-year RFS rate (OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.55, p = 0.12) of the two groups were comparable.

conclusionsOPG might be an oncologically safe procedure with better surgical outcomes for patients with GC than GCO. However, high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this benefit.

Indexed as

gastric canceromentectomyomentum-preserving gastrectomyoncological outcomessurgical outcomes

Identifiers

PMID34540677
PMCPMC8447879
OpenAlexW3197962054

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.