ArticleBMJ open2023
Incidence of colonic fistulas in patients with colon cancer submitted to robotic surgery versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. 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, 3 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUp to the present time, the laparoscopic approach for colon cancer is considered the gold standard. However, robotic surgery has been appraised in modern medicine. It is essential to evaluate the differences between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, owing to the significant impact they cause in postoperative morbidity and mortality. This article aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to compare robotic versus laparoscopic colectomies in patients with colon cancer in terms of the incidence of colonic fistulas. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, LILACS and Clinical trials databases will be searched for randomised clinical trials investigating the incidence of colonic fistulas in patients with colonic cancer, submitted to robotic surgery compared with a laparoscopic approach. No language or publication period restrictions will be imposed. The primary outcome will be the incidence of colonic fistulas in patients with colon cancer in different surgical approaches. The secondary outcomes will be the incidence of infection, sepsis, mortality, length of hospitalisation and malnutrition. Three independent reviewers will select the studies and extract data from the original publications. The risk of bias will be assessed using The Risk of Bias 2 tool, and the evidence's certainty will be made using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Data synthesis will be performed using the Review Manager software (RevMan V.5.2.3). To assess heterogeneity. We will compute the I ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will review the published data; thus, it is not necessary to obtain ethical approval. The findings of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021295313.
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.