Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34912700›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2021

Comparison Among Endoscopic, Laparoscopic, and Open Resection for Relatively Small Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (<5 cm): A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

Zhen Liu, Ziyang Zeng, Siwen Ouyang, Zimu Zhang, Juan Sun, Xianze Wang, Xin Ye, Weiming Kang, Jianchun Yu

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Risk factors of perforation in gastric stromal tumors during endoscopic resection: a retrospective case-control study.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2023
    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.

Zhen LiuDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Ziyang ZengDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Siwen OuyangDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Zimu ZhangDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Juan SunDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Xianze WangDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Xin YeDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Weiming KangDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Jianchun YuDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Peking Union Medical College Hospital · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic resection (ESR) is a novel minimally invasive procedure for superficial tumors. Its safety, efficiency, and outcome for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (gGISTs) less than 5 cm remains unclear compared to laparoscopic resection (LAR) and open resection (ONR). The current network meta-analysis aimed to review and analyze the available evidence of this question.

methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify eligible studies published up to July 6, 2020. The perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes among ESR, LAR, and ONR for gGIST (<5 cm) were estimated through the Bayesian network meta-analysis with a random-effect model.

resultsFifteen studies with 1,631 patients were included. ESR was associated with a shorter operative time [mean difference, MD: -36; 95% confidence interval, CI (-55, -16)], a higher rate of positive margin [odds ratio, OR: 5.1 × 10

conclusionESR was shown to be a safe and efficient alternative procedure to both LAR and ONR for gGISTs less than 2 cm and within 2-5 cm, respectively, without worsening the oncologic outcomes. However, preoperative assessment of tumor site is of importance for the determination of procedures regarding the increased incidence of a positive margin related to ESR.

Indexed as

endoscopic resectiongastric gastrointestinal stromal tumorlaparoscopic resectionnetwork meta-analysisopen resection

Identifiers

PMID34912700
PMCPMC8667731
OpenAlexW3215570429

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.