SynthesisJournal of gynecologic oncology2024
Comparison of survival outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomies for early-stage cervical cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic versus open (or laparoscopic) hysterectomy: a comprehensive review of clinical, surgical, and economic outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Computer-assisted and image-guided surgery for surgical lymph-nodal staging of gynecologic cancer in the era of digital and robotic surgery: a review of current evidence.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- How robotic platforms have expanded the boundaries of minimally invasive surgery: a narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Correspondence on "Robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: current trends and controversies".Journal of Cancer · 2025Article
- Minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: a narrative review of controversies and clinical implications.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Comparison of surgical and oncological outcomes between different surgical approaches for overweight or obese cervical cancer patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSurvival outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) remain controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate survival outcomes between RRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.
methodsStudies comparing between RRH and LRH published up to November 2022 were systemically searched in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of the published studies were also performed. Two researchers independently extracted data. Studies with information on recurrence and death after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy were also included. The extracted data were analyzed using the Stata MP software package version 17.0.
resultsTwenty eligible clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. When all studies were pooled, the odds ratios of RRH for recurrence and death were 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.91-1.55; p=0.613; I²=0.0%) and 0.96 (95% CI=0.65-1.42; p=0.558; I²=0.0%), respectively. In a subgroup analysis, the quality of study methodology, study size, country where the study was conducted, and publication year were not associated with survival outcomes between RRH and LRH.
conclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrates that the survival outcomes are comparable between RRH and LRH.
trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Identifier: CRD42023387916.
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.