ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2022
Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic
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. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic versus open surgery for gallbladder cancer: a meta-analysis of propensity-score-matched studies.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery for gallbladder cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Minimally invasive radical surgery for gallbladder cancer: a single-unit experience of over 200 patients.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the development of laparoscopic techniques, gallbladder cancer (GBC) is no longer a contraindication to laparoscopic surgery (LS). Although LS is recommended for stage T1 GBC, the value of LS for stage T2 GBC is still controversial.
aimTo evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of LS in comparison to those of open surgery (OS) for stage T2 GBC.
methodsWe searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases for published studies comparing the efficacy of LS and OS in the treatment of stage T2 GBC, with a cutoff date of September 2022. The Stata 15 statistical software was used for analysis. Relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were calculated to assess binary and continuous outcome indicators, respectively. Begg's test and Egger's test were used for detecting publication bias.
resultsA total of five studies were included, with a total of 297 patients, 153 in the LS group and 144 in the OS group. Meta-analysis results showed that the LS group was better than the OS group in terms of operative time [WMD = -41.29, 95% confidence interval (CI): -75.66 to -6.92,
conclusionThe long-term outcomes of LS for T2 GBC are similar to those of OS, but LS is superior to OS in terms of operative time, intraoperative bleeding, and postoperative hospital stay. Nevertheless, these findings should be validated
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.