ArticleBioMed research international2021
Comparison of Curative Complications between Mammotome-Assisted Minimally Invasive Resection and Conventional Open Resection for Breast Neoplasm: A Retrospective Clinical Study.
Article in BioMed research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-inferiority of minimally invasive rotational cutting in granulomatous mastitis treatment: a comparative trial.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The efficacy of norepinephrine application in Mammotome-assisted minimally invasive resection for benign breast neoplasm: A retrospective study.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- Retracted: Comparison of Curative Complications between Mammotome-Assisted Minimally Invasive Resection and Conventional Open Resection for Breast Neoplasm: A Retrospective Clinical Study.BioMed research international · 2024Article
- A retrospective cohort study of tamoxifen versus surgical treatment for ER-positive gynecomastia.BMC endocrine disorders · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2024-03-20Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Paper Mill · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo know the clinical value of mammotome-assisted minimally invasive resection (MAMIR) in the treatment of patients with breast neoplasm, we performed a retrospective clinical study for the patients treated with the MAMIR and conventional open resection (COR).
methodsPostoperative complications were compared between 40 patients treated with the MAMIR and 40 patients treated with the COR. The postoperative complications mainly included intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization days, operative time, surgical scar, and incidence of postoperative complications.
resultsWe found that the amount of intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization days, operative time, surgical scar, and incidence of postoperative complications in the MAMIR group were significantly lower than those of patients in the COR group.
conclusionOur results indicated that patients with breast neoplasm treated with the MAMIR had better outcomes, which reinforced the advantage of this approach.
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.