ArticleCancer medicine2022
Effect of modified no-touch laparoscopic radical hysterectomy on outcomes of early stage cervical cancer: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in cervical cancer: current insights and future directions.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2025Review
- Effect of modified no-touch laparoscopic radical hysterectomy on outcomes of early stage cervical cancer: A retrospective cohort study.Cancer 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to compare the prognosis of modified no-touch laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (MLRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) on survival in patients with early stage cervical cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe clinicopathological data of patients with stage IB1 and IIA1 cervical cancer, who underwent radical surgery between 2014 and 2019, were retrospectively reviewed. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between the MLRH and LRH groups using the Kaplan-Meier method. Independent prognostic factors for 5-year DFS and OS were identified using multivariate, forward, stepwise Cox proportional hazards regression models.
resultsA total of 223 patients with stage IB1 and IIA1 cervical cancer were included. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the 5-year DFS and OS rates in the MLRH (n = 81) group were significantly higher than those in the LRH group (n = 142) (DFS, 94.5% vs. 78.8%, p = 0.007; OS, 96.7% vs. 87.6%, p = 0.033). No significant differences were identified between the two groups in terms of operative time, blood loss, transfusion requirement, and intraoperative or postoperative complications. MLRH was an independent prognostic factor associated with increased 5-year DFS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.202; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.069-0.594; p = 0.004) and 5-year OS (adjusted HR, 0.163; 95% CI, 0.035-0.748; p = 0.020).
conclusionThe oncologic outcomes were superior with MLRH than with LRH in patients with stage IB1 and IIA1 cervical cancer. Contact of cervical tumor cells with the pelvic cavity likely explains the worse prognosis associated with LRH.
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.