ReviewGastroenterology research and practice2022
Laparoscopic Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery versus Conventional Surgery in Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transvaginal versus transabdominal specimen extraction in minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Application of double purse-string anastomosis in optimizing laparoscopic NOSES surgery for rectal cancer under the payment system of DRGs.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus totally laparoscopic surgery for right-sided colon cancer: a single-centre propensity score-matched study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
- Article
- Expanding the boundaries of minimally invasive surgery: the feasibility of robotic natural orifice transluminal extraction colectomy and robotic no-incision colectomy in colorectal practice.Annals of coloproctology · 2025Article
- Review
- Vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis for cecal cancer.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Article
- Article
- The robotic NICE procedure outperforms conventional laparoscopic extracorporeal-assisted colorectal resection: results of a matched cohort analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Robotic Sigmoidectomy With Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction: A Single-Center Experience.Cureus · 2023Article
- Short-term clinical effects and inflammatory response of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery for the treatment of sigmoid and rectal cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Article
- Is natural orifice specimen extraction surgery the future direction of minimally invasive colorectal surgery?Surgery open science · 2022Review
- Short-term and long-term outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgeries (NOSES) in rectal cancer: a comparison study of NOSES and non-NOSES.Annals of translational medicine · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study was to quantitatively synthesize data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of laparoscopic resection comparing natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) versus conventional laparoscopy (CL) in colorectal cancer.
methodsWe identified eligible RCTs by searching seven electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, CQVIP, Wanfang, and Sinomed). Mean differences (MDs) between groups with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used for continuous outcomes. Event rate ratios (RRs) were also calculated with their 95% CIs.
results1,569 citations were identified from electronic database as of June 2020, and finally, 21 RCTs involving 2,112 patients met the study eligibility criteria and were included. Compared to the CL group, NOSE had longer operation time (MD: 8.14 min, 95% CI: 3.02 to 13.25, and
conclusionThis report appeared the first comprehensive meta-analysis of RCTs to synthesize data of laparoscopic resection with NOSE versus conventional laparoscopy. NOSE surgery seemed favorable with shorter hospital stay, less pain score, a shorter time to recover along with better cosmetic scores, and less postoperative complications.
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.