SynthesisComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2022
Effect of Different General Anesthesia Methods on the Prognosis of Patients with Breast Cancer after Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The effect of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and inhalation anesthesia (IA) on the prognosis of breast cancer patients has been controversial. The study is aimed at exploring the effects of different anesthesia methods on the postoperative prognosis of breast cancer patients. Methods: Literature retrieval was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CNKI databases. The literature topic was to compare the effects of TIVA and IA on the prognosis of patients undergoing breast cancer resection. Two researchers extracted data from the literature independently. This study included randomized controlled trials that evaluated for risk of bias according to the "Risk assessment Tool for Bias in Randomized Trials" in the Cochrane Manual. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias in observational studies. The chi-square test was used for the heterogeneity test. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. If heterogeneity existed between literature, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were used to explore the source of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding low-quality and different-effect models. Data were statistically analyzed using the Cochrane software RevMan 5.3. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for statistical description. Results: Seven literatures were selected for meta-analysis. There were 9781 patients, 3736 (38.20%) receiving TIVA and 6045 (61.80%) receiving inhalation anesthesia. There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between TIVA and IA breast cancer patients (HR = 1.05, 95% CI (0.91, 1.22), Conclusion: There is no significant difference in OS and RFS between TIVA and IA patients during breast cancer resection. The prognostic effects of TIVA and IA were similar.
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.