Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35992849›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022

Robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on comparative studies.

Ruoyu Ji, Zhangyuting He, Shiyuan Fang, Wenjie Yang, Mengchao Wei, Jie Dong, Weifeng Xu, Zhigang Ji

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ruoyu JiPeking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Zhangyuting HePeking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Shiyuan FangPeking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Wenjie YangDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China.
Mengchao WeiDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China.
Jie DongDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China.
Weifeng XuDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China.
Zhigang JiDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNPeking Union Medical College Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Robot-assisted nephroureterectomy (RANU) and laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU) are two minimally invasive surgical management for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinomas (UTUC). Though more high-tech, it remains largely unclear whether RANU provides additional benefits over LNU. We aimed to quantitatively compare the perioperative and oncologic outcomes between RANU and LNU. Methods: The systematic review was performed based on a registered protocol (registration number CRD42022319086). We searched through PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, as well as conference proceedings and references of review articles (May 2022) for comparative studies reporting perioperative and oncologic outcomes independently in RANU and LNU groups. Selection of studies and data extraction were performed independently by two researchers. Risk of bias was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results of random-effects meta-analyses were presented as mean differences (MD) or Odds ratio (OR), as appropriate. Subgroup and univariate meta-regression analyses were performed to identify interstudy heterogeneities. Results: The review included 8470 patients undergoing RANU and 19872 patients undergoing LNU from 12 comparative original studies. RANU was associated with fewer overall complications (OR=0.71, 95%CI: 0.62 to 0.81), longer operative time (MD=27.70, 95%CI: 0.83 to 54.60) and shorter length of stay (MD=-0.53, 95%CI: -0.98 to -0.07) compared to LNU. In addition, patients receiving RANU were more likely to have lymph node dissected (OR=2.61, 95%CI: 1.86 to 3.65). Recurrence and survival outcomes did not differ between two surgical procedures. Sample size, types of LNU and world region were major sources of heterogeneity. Conclusion: For UTUC patients, RANU offers fewer complications and shorter hospitalization. However, RANU requires longer operative time and shares similar oncologic outcomes compared to LNU. Further randomized designed studies are warranted. Systematic Review Registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022319086.

Indexed as

complicationslaparoscopicnephroureterectomyrobot-assistedtreatment outcomeurothelial carcinomas

Identifiers

PMID35992849
PMCPMC9382403
OpenAlexW4289516878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.