Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36800079›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2023

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus radical resection for early-stage rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta- analysis.

Wei Li, Xing Xing Xiang, Hong Da Wang, Chen Jun Cai, Ying Hao Cao, Tao Liu

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Wei Li *Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan , Hubei Province, 430022, China.
Xing Xing Xiang *Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan , Hubei Province, 430022, China.
Hong Da WangDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan , Hubei Province, 430022, China.
Chen Jun CaiDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan , Hubei Province, 430022, China.
Ying Hao CaoCancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China. d201981630@hust.edu.cn.
Tao LiuCancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China. uniontao@hust.edu.can.
Huazhong University of Science and Technology · CNUnion Hospital · CN

Funding

the Jianghan Talent Funding No. 02.05.22030036
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn the treatment of early-stage rectal cancer, a growing number of studies have shown that transanal endoscopic microsurgery is one of the alternatives to radical surgery adhering to total mesorectal excision that can reduce the incidence of adverse events without compromising treatment outcomes. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and treatment effect of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and radical surgery adhering to total mesorectal excision to provide a basis for clinical treatment selections.

methodWe searched the literatures of four major databases, PubMed, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane Library, without limitation of time. The literatures included randomized controlled studies and cohort studies comparing two surgical procedures of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and radical surgery adhering to total mesorectal excision. Treatment effectiveness and safety results of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and radical surgery were extracted from the included literatures and statistically analyzed using RevMan5.4 and stata17.

resultUltimately, 13 papers were included in the study including 5 randomized controlled studies and 8 cohort studies. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the treatment effect and safety of both transanal endoscopic microsurgery and radical surgery in distant metastasis (RR, 0.59 (0.34, 1.02), P > 0.05), overall recurrence (RR, 1.49 (0.96, 2.31), P > 0.05), disease-specific-survival (RR, 0.74 (0.09, 1.57), P > 0.05), dehiscence of the sutureline or anastomosis leakage (RR, 0.57 (0.30, 1.06), P > 0.05), postoperative bleeding (RR, 0.47 (0.22, 0.99), P > 0.05), and pneumonia (RR, 0.37, (0.10, 1.40), P > 0.05) were not significantly different. However, they differ significantly in perioperative mortality (RR, 0.26 (0.07, 0.93, P < 0.05)), local recurrence (RR, 2.51 (1.53, 4.21), P < 0.05),_overall survival_ (RR, 0.88 (0.74, 1.00), P < 0.05), disease-free-survival (RR, 1.08 (0.97, 1.19), P < 0.05), temporary stoma (RR, 0.05 (0.01, 0.20), P < 0.05), permanent stoma (RR, 0.16 (0.08, 0.33), P < 0.05), postoperative complications (RR, 0.35 (0.21, 0.59), P < 0.05), rectal pain (RR, 1.47 (1.11, 1.95), P < 0.05), operation time (RR, -97.14 (-115.81, -78.47), P < 0.05), blood loss (RR, -315.52 (-472.47, -158.57), P < 0.05), and time of hospitalization (RR, -8.82 (-10.38, -7.26), P < 0.05).

conclusionTransanal endoscopic microsurgery seems to be one of the alternatives to radical surgery for early-stage rectal cancer, but more high-quality clinical studies are needed to provide a reliable basis.

Indexed as

Rectal NeoplasmsTransanal Endoscopic MicrosurgeryHumansMicrosurgeryNeoplasm StagingRectumRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeEarly-stage rectal cancerRadical surgeryTotal mesorectal excisionTransanal endoscopic microsurgery

Identifiers

PMID36800079
PMCPMC9938057
OpenAlexW4321169465

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.