ArticleJournal of oncology2022
Clinical Efficacy of Single-Port Thoracoscopic Lobectomy versus Three-Port Thoracoscopic Lobectomy for Lung Cancer.
Article in Journal of oncology, 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 It has been retracted, and should not be counted.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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Initial experience of single-incision plus one port total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.BMC surgery · 2023Article
- Perioperative Effect of Single-Port Thoracoscopic Segmentectomy and Three-Port Thoracoscopic Segmentectomy in the Treatment of Early Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2023Article
- Enhanced recovery of postoperative nursing for single-port thoracoscopic surgery in lung cancer patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Retracted: Clinical Efficacy of Single-Port Thoracoscopic Lobectomy versus Three-Port Thoracoscopic Lobectomy for Lung Cancer.Journal of oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-07-12Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of single-port thoracoscopic lobectomy versus three-port thoracoscopic lobectomy for lung cancer. Methods: From February 2020 to February 2021, 200 lung cancer patients treated in our institution assessed for eligibility were enrolled and randomly assigned (1 : 1) to either the experimental group (single-port thoracoscopic lobectomy) or the control group (three-port thoracoscopic lobectomy). The outcomes were the eligible patients' surgical indices, pain stress indexes, and postoperative complications. Results: The experimental group outperformed the control group in terms of incision length, postoperative drainage time, extubation time, time to get out of bed, time to analgesics administration, and postoperative pain score ( Conclusion: Single-port thoracoscopic lobectomy can improve the perioperative indices of lung cancer patients, reduce their pain stress response, and accelerate postoperative recovery. However, its operation is difficult and time-consuming, requiring experienced surgeons for improved surgical outcomes in practice.
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.