SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2023
Minimally invasive surgery vs. open thoracotomy for non-small-cell lung cancer with N2 disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors associated with safe and successful postoperative day 1 discharge after lung operations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Less pain and earlier recovery after extra-thoracic single-port robotic lung resection: a propensity-matched comparison.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Uniportal-VATS for Early-Stage NSCLC in Octogenarians: A Single-Center, Retrospective Study of Surgical and Short-Term Oncological Outcomes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Long-Term Oncological Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Updated Review.Cancers · 2026Review
- Emerging technologies in thoracic surgery: artificial intelligence, robotic-assisted surgery, and telesurgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- TheJournal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Robotic-Assisted Thoracic Surgery Approach to Thoracic Endometriosis Syndrome with Unilateral Diaphragmatic Palsy.Case reports in surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive surgery [MIS, including robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS)] and open thoracotomy (OT) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with N2 disease. Methods: We searched online databases and studies from the creation of the database to August 2022, comparing the MIS group to the OT group for NSCLC with N2 disease. Study endpoints included intraoperative outcomes [e.g., conversion, estimated blood loss (EBL), surgery time (ST), total lymph nodes (TLN), and R0 resection], postoperative outcomes [e.g., length of stay (LOS) and complication], and survival outcomes [e.g., 30-day mortality, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS)]. We estimated outcomes using random effects meta-analysis to account for studies with high heterogeneity ( Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies on MIS vs. OT for NSCLC with N2 disease included 8,374 patients. Compared to OT, patients that underwent MIS had less estimated blood loss (EBL) (SMD = - 64.82, Conclusion: Current data suggest that minimally invasive surgery may provide satisfying outcomes, a higher R0 resection rate, and better short-term and long-term survival than open thoracotomy. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022355712.
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.