ReviewWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2022
Development and future perspectives of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for gastric cancer.
Review in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Clinical Study of Robotic Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery for Right Colon Cancer].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2026Article
- Quality of life, anxiety and depression risks after natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer patients: a prospective two-centre case-matched study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- A novel transoral extraction technique in robotic resection of gastroduodenal tumors: a case series.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
- Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: history and current development.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Comparative outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus totally laparoscopic surgery for right-sided colon cancer: a single-centre propensity score-matched study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Review
- Progress, challenges, and future perspectives of robot-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for colorectal cancer: a review.BMC surgery · 2024Review
- Short-term outcomes of Transrectal Natural Orifice Specimen extraction compared with conventional minimally invasive surgery for selected patients with colorectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis and literature review.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Perioperative outcomes of transvaginal specimen extraction laparoscopic total gastrectomy and conventional laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES), a novel minimally invasive surgical technique, has become a focus in the surgical field, and has been initially applied in gastric surgery in many national medical centers worldwide. In addition, this new surgical technique was launched in major hospitals in China. With an increasing number of patients who have accepted this new surgical technique, NOSES has provided new prospects for the treatment of gastric cancer (GC), which may achieve a better outcome for both patients and surgeons. More and more experts and scholars from different countries and regions are currently paying close attention to NOSES for the treatment of GC. However, there are only a few reports of its use in GC. This review focuses on the research progress in NOSES for radical gastrectomy in recent years. We also discuss the challenges and prospects of NOSES in clinical practice.
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.