ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2022
Meta-analysis of transanal
Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAchieving a clear resection margins for low rectal cancer is technically challenging. Transanal approach to total mesorectal excision (TME) was introduced in order to address the challenges associated with the laparoscopic approach in treating low rectal cancers. However, previous meta-analyses have included mixed population with mid and low rectal tumours when comparing both approaches which has made the interpretation of the real differences between two approaches in treating low rectal cancer difficult.
aimTo investigate the outcomes of transanal TME (TaTME) and laparoscopic TME (LaTME) in patients with low rectal cancer.
methodsA comprehensive systematic review of comparative studies was performed in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards. Intraoperative and postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, R0 resection, completeness of mesorectal excision, circumferential resection margin (CRM), distal resection margin (DRM), harvested lymph nodes, and operation time were the investigated outcome measures.
resultsWe included twelve comparative studies enrolling 969 patients comparing TaTME (
conclusionOur findings indicated that for low rectal tumours
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.