Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37965455›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2023

Comparison of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection: a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Zhilong Huang, Shibo Huang, Yanping Huang, Raoshan Luo, Weiming Liang

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhilong Huang *The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Shibo Huang *The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Yanping HuangThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Raoshan LuoThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Weiming LiangThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Guangxi University of Science and Technology · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: There is still controversy on whether or not robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) have advantages over laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery(LACS). Materials and methods: The four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library)were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of RACS and LACS in the treatment of colorectal cancer from inception to 22 July 2023. Results: Eleven RCTs were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Compared with LACS,RACS has significantly longer operation time(MD=5.19,95%CI: 18.00,39.82, P<0.00001), but shorter hospital stay(MD=2.97,95%CI:-1.60,-0.33,P = 0.003),lower conversion rate(RR=3.62,95%CI:0.40,0.76,P = 0.0003), lower complication rate(RR=3.31,95%CI:0.64,0.89,P=0.0009),fewer blood loss(MD=2.71,95%CI:-33.24,-5.35,P = 0.007),lower reoperation rate(RR=2.12, 95%CI:0.33,0.96,P=0.03)and longer distal resection margin(MD=2.16, 95%CI:0.04,0.94, P = 0.03). There was no significantly difference in harvested lymph nodes, the time of first flatus, the time of first defecation,the time of first resume diet, proximal resection margin, readmission rates, mortalities and CRM+ rates between two group. Conclusions: Our study indicated that RACS is a feasible and safe technique that can achieve better surgical efficacy compared with LACS in terms of short-term outcomes. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023447088.

Indexed as

colorectal cancercomplicationlaparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgeryrandomized controlled trialrobot-assisted colorectal surgery

Identifiers

PMID37965455
PMCPMC10641393
OpenAlexW4387974759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.