ArticleCancers2023
Comparison of the Survival Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery with Open Surgery in Patients with Uterine-Confined and Node-Negative Cervical Cancer: A Population-Based Study.
Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survival outcomes.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- External validation of the SUCCOR Risk score for predicting recurrence in early-stage cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2026Observational
- Impact of laparoscopic versus open surgery on 5-year survival in patients with stage IA2-IB1 cervical cancer: a retrospective cohort study.American journal of cancer research · 2026Article
- Trends in incidence and hormonal management of endometrial cancer during potentially reproductive age in Japan: a population-based study.International journal of clinical oncology · 2024Article
- Comparison of the survival outcomes of laparoscopic, abdominal and gasless laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: trial protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (LAGCC trial).Frontiers in oncology · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to compare the oncological outcomes between Japanese women with uterine-confined and node-negative cervical cancer who underwent open surgery and those who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS). A population-based retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the Osaka Cancer Registry that ranged from 2011 to 2018. A total of 2279 patients who underwent surgical treatment for uterine-confined and node-negative cervical cancer were identified. The patients were classified into groups according to surgery type (open and MIS groups) and year of diagnosis (group one, 2011-2014; group two, 2015-2018). The oncologic outcomes were compared between the MIS and open groups. When the MIS group (n = 225) was compared with open group (n = 2054), overall, there was no significant between-group difference in terms of overall survival. Based on Kaplan-Meier estimates, the probability of overall survival at four years was 99.5% in the MIS group and 97.2% in the open group (
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.