ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2024
A retrospective study of the effects of uterine manipulators on prognosis in patients with cervical cancer.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis retrospective study investigated the effects of uterine manipulator use during minimally invasive radical hysterectomy on prognosis in patients with cervical cancer.
methodsWe collected clinical data on 762 patients with stage IA2 to IIB cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in Chinese PLA General Hospital from 2009 to 2019. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the 5-year overall survival rates between patients treated with and without a uterine manipulator.
resultsPatient demographics did not differ between the two groups. In addition, the incidence of lymphovascular space invasion, tumor size, pathologic types, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, the histologic grade, and the rate of lymphatic metastases did not differ between the groups. Meanwhile, perioperative clinical indicators were similar in the groups. Furthermore, no significant differences in 5-year survival rates and survival curves were recorded between the groups among both all patients (84.5% vs. 85.6%) and early-stage patients (89.1% vs. 89.2%).
conclusionsThe use of uterine manipulators during minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer did not affect clinicopathological markers or increase the risk of death.
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.