ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2022
Thoracoscopic Lobectomy versus Segmentectomy in the Treatment of Patients with Early-Stage Lung Cancer.
Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Therapeutic effects of single-port thoracoscopic anatomical segmentectomy on early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2025Article
- Effects of "Timing It Right" nursing on clinical outcome and psychological resilience for lung cancer patients undergoing radical thoracoscopic surgery.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Retracted: Thoracoscopic Lobectomy versus Segmentectomy in the Treatment of Patients with Early-Stage Lung Cancer.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-06-21Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Human Subject Welfare · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Lack of IRB/IACUC Approval and/or Compliance · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions · · See also: https://pubpeer.com/publications/0C837630B3E4CFCC6DC08A2B93D9E6
- Retracted
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the clinical efficacy of thoracoscopic lobectomy and segmentectomy in the treatment of patients with early-stage lung cancer. Methods: A total of 70 patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer who were treated in our hospital from April 2018 to May 2020 were recruited and assigned at a ratio of 1 : 1 to receive either segmentectomy (observation group) or lobectomy (control group). Outcome measures included clinical efficacy, surgery-related indicators, pulmonary function indicators (forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)), postoperative complications, and recurrence and metastasis. Results: There was no significant difference in the clinical efficacy between the two groups ( Conclusion: The two surgical methods have similar efficacy and safety profiles, but for the treatment of patients with early-stage lung cancer, thoracoscopic segmentectomy is associated with a shorter hospital stay and better protection of the lung function of patients compared to lobectomy.
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.