ReviewFrontiers in surgery2023
Clinical-pathological features and perioperative outcomes of mediastinoscopy vs. thoracoscopy esophagectomy in esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multivariate integrated predictive model for 1-year mortality risk prognosis in patients undergoing esophageal cancer resection: establishment and validation.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted cervical esophagectomy with simultaneous transhiatal abdominal procedure for thoracic esophageal carcinoma.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Application of Inflatable Video-Assisted Mediastinoscopic Transhiatal Esophagectomy in Individualized Treatment of Esophageal Cancer.Biomedicines · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinicopathological features and perioperative outcomes of video-assisted mediastinoscopy esophagectomy (VAME) compared to video-assisted thoracoscopy esophagectomy (VATE) in esophageal cancer. Methods: We comprehensively searched online databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Wiley online library) to find available studies exploring the clinicopathological features and perioperative outcomes between VAME and VATE in esophageal cancer. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI were used to evaluate the perioperative outcomes and clinicopathological features. Results: A total of seven observational studies and one randomized controlled trial involving 733 patients were considered eligible for this meta-analysis, of which 350 patients underwent VAME in contrast to 383 patients underwent VATE. Patients in the VAME group had more pulmonary comorbidities (RR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.37-3.46, Conclusions: This meta-analysis revealed that patients in the VAME group had more pulmonary disease before surgery. The VAME approach significantly shortened the operation time and retrieved less total lymph nodes and did not increase intra- or postoperative complications.
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.