Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. On the edge: pathology specimen quality in robotic and laparoscopic proctectomy, a propensity score-matched study.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2026
   Article
2. Predicting anatomical difficulty in robot-assisted rectal resection using a novel anatomic landmark-based grading system: a prospective observational study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026
   Observational
3. Current Evidence in Robotic Colorectal Surgery.Cancers · 2025
   Review

Corrections and comments

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

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as