ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2022
Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on esophagectomies in esophageal cancer: The superiority of minimally invasive surgery.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapyWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2024Pooled it
- Intraoperative pyloric drainage is unnecessary during esophagectomies: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2024Pooled it
- Outcomes of early fiberoptic bronchoscopic sputum aspiration and lavage after thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophageal cancer surgery: a randomized clinical trial.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2023Trial
- Review
- Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Robot-Assisted Esophagectomy With Total Mesoesophageal Excision and Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Research progress in the application of double-lumen endobronchial tubes and bronchial blockers in thoracic surgery.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- The risk analysis of unplanned tracheal intubation after radical esophagectomy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Short-and middle-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for highly locally advanced esophageal cancer with stage cT3 borderline and cT4b at initial diagnosis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Approaches for thoracoabdominal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: a network meta-analysis - study protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Long-Term Impact of Severe Postoperative Complications after Esophagectomy for Cancer: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2024Review
- Efficacy and complications of single-port thoracoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a single-center experience.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Postesophagectomy Diaphragmatic Prolapse after Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE).Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Faster recovery and bowel movement after early oral feeding compared to late oral feeding after upper GI tumor resections: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
- Early Oral Feeding in Patients Undergoing Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Propensity Score-matching Study.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious meta-analyses, with many limitations, have described the beneficial nature of minimal invasive procedures.
aimTo compare all modalities of esophagectomies to each other from the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a network meta-analysis (NMA).
methodsWe conducted a systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE,
resultsWe included 11 studies in our analysis. We found a significant difference in postoperative pulmonary infection, which favored the minimally invasive intervention compared to transthoracic surgery (risk ratio 0.49; 95%CI: 0.23 to 0.99). The operation time was significantly shorter for the transhiatal approach compared to transthoracic surgery (mean difference -85 min; 95%CI: -150 to -29), hybrid intervention (mean difference -98 min; 95%CI: -190 to -9.4), minimally invasive technique (mean difference -130 min; 95%CI: -210 to -50), and robot-assisted esophagectomy (mean difference -150 min; 95%CI: -240 to -53). Other comparisons did not yield significant differences.
conclusionBased on our results, the implication of minimally invasive esophagectomy should be favored.
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.