SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023
A meta-analysis of treatment for early-stage cervical cancer: open versus minimally invasive radical trachelectomy.
Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgical Techniques for Radical Trachelectomy.Cancers · 2025Review
- Modified abdominal radical trachelectomy used to spare fertility during surgery for early-stage cervical cancer: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn previous systematic reviews, meta-analysis was lacking, resulting in the statistical difference between the data of different surgeries being impossible to judge. This meta-analysis aims to contrast the fertility results and cancer outcomes between open and minimally invasive surgery.
methodWe systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus to collect studies that included open and minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. A random-effect model calculated the weighted average difference of each primary outcome via Review Manager V.5.4.
resultEight studies (1369 patients) were incorporated into our study. For fertility results, the Open group excels MIS group in pregnancies-Third trimester delivery [OR = 2.68; 95% CI (1.29, 5.59); P = 0.008]. Nevertheless, there is no statistical difference in clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and second-trimester rate. Concerning cancer outcomes, no difference was detected in the overall survival [OR = 1.56; 95% CI (0.70, 3.45); P = 0.27] and recurrence [OR = 0.63; 95% CI (0.35, 1.12); P = 0.12]. Concerning surgery-related outcomes, the comprehensive effects revealed that the estimated blood loss of the Open group was higher than that of the MIS group[MD = 139.40; 95% CI (79.05, 199.75); P < 0.0001]. However, there was no difference between the postoperative complication rate in the two groups [OR = 1.52; 95% CI (0.89, 2.60); P = 0.12].
conclusionThis meta-analysis suggested that the fertility result of the Open group may be better than the MIS group, while the MIS group has better surgery-related outcomes. Owing to the poor cases of our study, a more robust conclusion requires more relevant articles in the future. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022352999.
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.