ArticleWideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques2022
Evaluation of the efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for treating cervical cancer: a meta-analysis.
Article in Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A meta-analysis comparing open and minimally invasive cervical tumor surgery wound infection and postoperative complications.BMC surgery · 2024Pooled it
- A meta-analysis examining the impact of open surgical therapy versus minimally invasive surgery on wound infection in females with cervical cancer.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of minimally invasive surgery and laparotomy on wound infection and postoperative and intraoperative complications in the management of cervical cancer: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- A Minimally Invasive Treatment Approach for Early-Stage Uterine Cervical Cancer: The Impact of the LACC Trial and a Literature Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLaparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) are commonly used for cervical cancer treatment. However, the clinical application of LARVH versus ARH in treating cervical cancer remains controversial.
aimTo investigate the efficacy of LARVH versus ARH in treating cervical cancer via comparing several inductors by pooling related studies. MATERIAL AND
methodsEligible articles from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were screened using established search terms. Consecutive variables were pooled using weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Categorical variables were pooled using odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI.
resultsA total of 13 articles were included in this meta-analysis, comprising 579 patients who underwent LARVH and 810 who underwent ARH. LARVH required a longer operation time (WMD = 50.97, 95% CI: 38.34, 63.59, p < 0.001) than ARH. However, compared to patients who underwent ARH, those who underwent LARVH had less bleeding volume (WMD =
conclusionsOwing to these reasons, LARVH has more application prospects than ARH in treating cervical cancer.
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.