Observational studyComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2021
Short-Term Efficacy and Quality of Life of Gastric Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Gastrectomy Assisted by External Vision.
Observational study in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 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 It has been retracted, and should not be counted.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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of gastrointestinal motility therapy combined with acupuncture on gastrointestinal function in patients after laparoscopic radical surgery.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Retracted: Short-Term Efficacy and Quality of Life of Gastric Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Gastrectomy Assisted by External Vision.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2023Article
- Patient-reported gastrointestinal symptoms following surgery for gastric cancer and the relative risk factors.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-07-19Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Informed/Patient Consent - None/Withdrawn · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Lack of IRB/IACUC Approval and/or Compliance · Paper Mill · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions · · See also: https://pubpeer.com/publications/CE6E5D0AE8FCC7C3447BEAEF99D70D
- Retracted
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical effects and survival prognosis of radical gastrectomy assisted by external vision in gastric cancer.
methodsA total of 60 hospitalized gastric cancer patients from June 2016 to December 2018 were selected and divided into the observation group and control group according to different surgical procedures. The control group was treated with traditional open radical gastrectomy, while the observation group was treated with radical gastrectomy assisted by an external vision microscope. Relevant surgical indicators, visual analogue scale (VAS), postoperative complications, and life quality assessment were analyzed and compared between the two groups.
resultsThe incision length and intraoperative blood loss in the observation group were smaller than those in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (
conclusionRadical gastrectomy assisted by external vision for gastric cancer yields clinical benefits for gastric cancer patients, which not only dramatically shortened the length of hospital stay but also effectively ameliorated the quality of life of patients, all indicating that external vision-assisted surgery was significantly better than traditional gastrectomy in improving the postoperative quality of life of gastric cancer patients in the absence of increasing the risk of adverse events.
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.