SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022
Efficacy and Safety of Minimally Invasive Surgery Versus Open Laparotomy for Interval Debulking Surgery of Advanced Ovarian Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review and A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Roles of minimally invasive techniques in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer (Review).Oncology letters · 2026Review
- Review
- Laparoscopy in the Surgical Management of Gynecological Cancer: A Comprehensive Update.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Multidisciplinary multivisceral resections involving the upper digestive tract: a United Kingdom tertiary cancer centre experience.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- Survival outcomes comparing minimally invasive versus open cytoreductive surgery in recurrent adult-type granulosa cell tumors.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2025Article
- Disparities in facility-level adoption of minimally invasive interval debulking surgery for advanced ovarian cancer.Gynecologic oncology · 2025Article
- An overview of the current debate between using minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy for interval cytoreductive surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2023Review
- Urologic Complication after Laparoscopic Hysterectomy in Gynecology Oncology: A Single-Center Analysis and Narrative Review of the Literature.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The selection of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or open laparotomy for ovarian cancer (OC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy still remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of MIS versus open laparotomy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced OC, so as to provide another option to select optimal surgical procedures for patients with OC. Methods: Relevant literature studies about the risks of progression or mortality between women receiving MIS and open laparotomy for interval debulking surgery (IDS) were searched in the online databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library with the following keywords: "ovarian neoplasms", "minimally invasive surgical procedures", "laparotomy", and "neoadjuvant therapy". Eligible studies were screened out for further meta-analysis. Results: Six eligible literature studies, with 643 patients in the MIS group and 2,885 patients in the open laparotomy group, were included in this meta-analysis. No significant differences were detected in the overall survival (OS) of patients with OC who were treated with MIS or open laparotomy [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.59-1.23; heterogeneity: P = 0.051, I Conclusions: For IDS after NACT in patients with advanced OC, complete cytoreductive surgery with MIS is another feasible and effective choice. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022298519, identifier CRD42022298519.
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.