SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2021
Laparoscopic nerve‑sparing radical hysterectomy for the treatment of cervical cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of pelvic floor dysfunction and sexual dysfunction in cervical cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2023Pooled it
- Pelvic neural injuries and acute voiding changes in rat models of radical hysterectomy.PloS one · 2024Article
- Survival Impacts of Perineural Invasion on Patients Under Different Radical Hysterectomies Due to Early Cervical Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effects and safety of laparoscopic nerve‑sparing radical hysterectomy (LNSRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in cervical cancer treatment remain unclear. This article aims to evaluate the role of LNSRH versus LRH in the treatment of cervical cancer. This is because the updated meta-analysis with synthesized data may provide more reliable evidence on the role of LNSRH and LRH.
methodsWe searched Pubmed et al. databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving laparoscopic nerve‑sparing radical hysterectomy (LNSRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer treatment from the inception of databases to June 15, 2021. The RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analyses. This meta-analysis protocol had been registered online (available at: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2021-9-0047/ ).
resultsThirteen RCTs involving a total of 1002 cervical cancer patients were included. Synthesized results indicated that the duration of surgery of the LNSRH group was significantly longer than that of the LRH group [SMD 1.11, 95% CI (0.15 ~ 2.07), P = 0.02]. The time to intestinal function recovery [SMD -1.27, 95% CI (-1.84 ~ -0.69), P < 0.001] and the time to postoperative urinary catheter removal of the LNSRH group [SMD -1.24, 95% CI (-1.62 ~ -0.86), P < 0.001] were significantly less than that of the LRH group. There were no significant differences in the estimated blood loss [SMD 0.10, 95% CI (-0.14 ~ 0.34), P = 0.41], the length of parauterine tissue resection [SMD -0.10, 95% CI (-0.25 ~ 0.05), P = 0.19], length of vaginal excision [SMD 0.04, 95% CI (-0.26 ~ 0.34), P = 0.78], and incidence of intraoperative adverse events [RR 0.97, 95% CI (0.44 ~ 2.13), P = 0.94] between the LNSRH group and the LRH group.
conclusionsLNSRH significantly results in earlier bladder and bowel function after surgery. Limited by sample size, LNSRH should be considered with caution in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.