ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2024
Current analysis of the survival implications for minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of early-stage cervix cancer.
Review in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Overall and Cause-Specific Late Mortality in Long-Term Survivors of Early Onset Solid Cancer After Surgery: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early-stage cervical cancer (ESCC) is managed with radical hysterectomy, a procedure that can be performed either via open surgery or minimally invasive surgery (MIS), the latter of which is accomplished via traditional laparoscopy or robotic-assisted surgery. Previously, MIS was routinely incorporated into the management of ESCC due to the approach's reduced operative morbidity and truncated hospital stay duration, but more recent clinical evidence has since impugned the efficacy of MIS because of the reportedly inferior disease-free survival and overall survival outcomes compared to open surgery. However, additional studies have documented equivalent outcomes among the various surgical modalities, suggesting further exploration of clinical factors as we endeavor to conclusively determine the standard of care for patients diagnosed with ESCC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38366169What 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.