Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38911190›Full record

ArticleHepatobiliary surgery and nutrition2024

Laparoscopic versus open surgery in treating patients with gallbladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Duo Li, Li Xu, Xiangling Deng, Yongliang Sun, Zihuan Zhang, Tianxiao Wang, Ruili Wei, Yingjixing Luo, Wenquan Niu, Zhiying Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Duo Li *Graduate School, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6522-561X
Li Xu *Department of General Surgery, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7089-7744
Xiangling DengGraduate School, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Yongliang SunDepartment of General Surgery, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China.
Zihuan ZhangGraduate School, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9443-3920
Tianxiao WangDepartment of General Surgery, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8137-313X
Ruili WeiGraduate School, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4328-4010
Yingjixing LuoGraduate School, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8921-220X
Wenquan NiuCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine, Capital Institute of Pediatrics, Beijing, China.
Zhiying YangGraduate School, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Concerns over the security of laparoscopic radical operation for gallbladder cancer (GBC) persist. This systematic review and meta-analysis attempted to compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery (LS) versus open surgery (OS) in the treatment of GBC. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 18, 2022. Literature search, quality assessment, and data extraction were completed independently and in duplicate. Effect-size estimates expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were derived under the random-effects model. Results: A total of 27 independent studies including 2,868 participants were meta-analyzed. Significance was noted for intraoperative blood loss (WMD: -117.194, 95% CI: -170.188 to 64.201, P<0.001), harvested lymph nodes (WMD: -1.023, 95% CI: -1.776 to -0.269, P=0.008), postoperative hospital stay (WMD: -3.555, 95% CI: -4.509 to -2.601, P<0.001), postoperative morbidity (OR: 0.596, 95% CI: 0.407 to 0.871, P=0.008), overall survival rate at 2-year (OR: 1.524, 95% CI: 1.143 to 2.031, P=0.004), T2 survival at 1-year (OR: 1.799, 95% CI: 1.777 to 2.749, P<0.01) and 2-year (OR: 2.026, 95% CI: 1.392 to 2.949, P<0.001), as well as T3 survival at 1-year (OR: 2.669, 95% CI: 1.564 to 4.555, P<0.001) and 2-year (OR: 2.300, 95% CI: 1.308 to 4.046, P=0.004). Subgroup analyses revealed that ethnicity, incidental GBC, sample size, and follow-up period were possible sources of heterogeneity. There was a low probability of publication bias for all outcomes except postoperative morbidity. Conclusions: Our findings indicated that LS statistically had better 2-year survival rates, less intraoperative bleeding, shorter hospitalization times, and lower rates of complications than OS. However, the superiority and even the safety of LS still remain an open question due to the impact of incidental GBC, unaccounted heterogeneity, publication bias, lymph node dissection, and port-site metastasis.

Indexed as

gallbladder cancer (GBC)laparoscopic surgery (LS)open surgerysurvivalSystematic review and meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID38911190
PMCPMC11190509

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.