ArticleScientific reports2023
Comparison of complications between laparoscopic and open gastrectomies for early gastric cancer by a nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A unified framework for postoperative complications after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: insights from the Korean Quality Improvement Platform in Surgery program.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic ultrasound versus intraoperative gastroscopy for tumor localization in laparoscopic gastrectomy: a comparative cohort study.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Review
- Male Sex as a Risk Factor for Perioperative Morbidity and Recurrence Following Minimally Invasive Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The safety of laparoscopic gastrectomy compared with that of open surgery for the treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC) is unidentified on a national scale. We aimed to compare the morbidity between laparoscopic and open gastrectomies for pathological T1 gastric cancer based on nationwide survey data. Data of 14,076 patients who underwent gastric cancer surgery obtained from the 2019 Korean Gastric Cancer Association-led nationwide survey were used. For patients with pathological T1 gastric cancer, the clinical characteristics were compared between the laparoscopic and open gastrectomy groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to match the baseline characteristics of the groups. Among the 7765 patients with pathological T1 gastric cancer who underwent open or laparoscopic gastrectomy, 612 pairs were matched. After balancing the baseline characteristics, the laparoscopic gastrectomy group had a significantly longer operative time, less blood loss, greater number of harvested lymph nodes, shorter hospital stays, and comparable morbidity, compared with the open gastrectomy group (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.001, and P = 0.709, respectively). The surgical approach was not a risk factor for postoperative complication in logistic regression analysis. The PSM analysis with the 2019 Korean nationwide survey data demonstrated that laparoscopic gastrectomy showed comparable morbidity with open gastrectomy for EGC.
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.