ReviewCancers2023
The Uncomfortable Truth: Open Thoracotomy versus Minimally Invasive Surgery in Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating Surgical Approaches in Early NSCLC: A Meta-Analysis of Robot-Assisted and Video-Assisted Techniques.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Thoracoscopic versus conventional thoracotomy for esophageal atresia/tracheoesophageal fistula repair: a comprehensive meta-analysis of 25 comparative studies.Pediatric surgery international · 2025Pooled it
- Augmented Reality Implementation in Minimally Invasive Surgery for Future Application in Pulmonary Surgery: A Systematic Review.Surgical innovation · 2024Pooled it
- Analgesia in Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery: A Comparison Between Robotic Surgery and Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Optimizing Recovery After Thoracotomy: Evidence-Based Non-Opioid and Multimodal Analgesia - A Narrative Review.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Article
- Race, gender, and safety: exposing biases in minimally invasive lung cancer surgery research.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Immunotherapy for resectable lung cancer.Cancer · 2025Review
- Resectable non-stage IV nonsmall cell lung cancer: the surgical perspective.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For decades, lung surgery in thoracic cancer has evolved in two ways: saving more parenchyma and being minimally invasive. Saving parenchyma is a fundamental principle of surgery. However, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a matter of approach, so it has to do with advances in surgical techniques and tools. For example, MIS has become possible with the introduction of VATS (video-assisted thoracic surgery), and the development of tools has extended the indication of MIS. Especially, RATS (robot-assisted thoracic surgery) improved the quality of life for patients and the ergonomics of doctors. However, the dichotomous idea that the MIS is new and right but the open thoracotomy is old and useless may be inappropriate. In fact, MIS is exactly the same as a classic thoracotomy in that it removes the mass/parenchyma containing cancer and mediastinal lymph nodes. Therefore, in this study, we compare randomized-controlled trials about open thoracotomy and MIS to find out which surgical method is more helpful.
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.