ArticleCancers2022
Comparison of Survival Outcomes between Minimally Invasive Surgery and Open Radical Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survival outcomes.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Tropomodulin 1 is essential for chemotherapy sensitivity and associated with better outcome in triple-negative breast cancer.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Radical Hysterectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Comparison of Prognosis between Abdominal and Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomies in Early-stage Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
- Comparison of survival between open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomies for stage IB1 cervical cancer (≤2 cm): A systematic review and meta-analysis.Tzu chi medical journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and laparotomy radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study involving women who received a radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, stage IA1 with lymphovascular invasion, IA2, IB1, IB2, or IIA from 2008 to 2016. Clinicopathologic and perioperative outcomes were compared using appropriate statistical methodologies.
resultsOncologic survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Among the 105 cases identified, 58 (55.2%) and 47 (44.8%) women underwent MIS and open radical hysterectomy, respectively. Over a median follow-up period of 62 months, women who underwent MIS and open radical hysterectomy had a 5-year overall survival rate of 87.9% and 89.4% (
conclusionsFor early-stage cervical cancer, patients who underwent MIS radical hysterectomy had survival outcomes that were comparable to those who underwent open surgery at our institute.
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.