SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024
Comparison of endoscopic breast-conserving surgery versus conventional breast-conserving surgery for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimal incision-assisted endoscopic versus conventional open breast-conserving surgery: A multicentre randomized clinical trial.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Trial
- Endoscopic and Da Vinci robotic-assisted surgery in breast cancer: a narrative review of current evidence, technical advances, and future perspectives.Gland surgery · 2026Review
- Endoscopy‑assisted breast‑conserving treatment: the first Polish review of 30 patients.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2026Article
- Robotic versus endoscopic breast-conserving surgery: a comparative analysis of clinical outcomes and aesthetic outcomes in breast cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Technical feasibility and short-term outcomes of single-incision endoscopic breast-conserving surgery with sentinel lymph node biopsy: initial Indian experience.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- The current status and hot topics of endoscopic techniques in breast cancer surgery: a global bibliometric and visualization analysis (1999-2024).Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Dual Sensitization Enables Synergistic Photodynamic Therapy and Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
- Effect of endoscopic surgery on quality of life and clinical prognosis of patients with early breast cancer compared with traditional modified radical surgery.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This meta-analysis seeks to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic breast-conserving surgery (E-BCS) compared to conventional breast cancer surgery (C-BCS) in patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. Materials and methods: Four databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL) were searched published from establishment of database to January 30,2024, for articles studying E-BCS compared to C-BCS in patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. Meta-analyses of procedure time, blood loss, length of incision, drainage duration, total postoperative drainage volume, average duration of hospital stay, positive rate of margin, complication rate, recurrence rate, metastasis rate and cosmetic scoring were performed. Results: Totally 11 studies were included for meta-analysis. Compared with C-BCS, E-BCS exhibited significantly reduced incision length (WMD = -6.44, 95%CI: -10.78 to -2.11, P=0.004, I Conclusions: Our research findings indicate that E-BCS is a viable and secure method for treating breast cancer in its early stages. E-BCS provides distinct advantages in terms of the length of the incision and the aesthetic result, without demonstrating an elevated recurrence rate or metastasis rate. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024535164, identifier CRD42024535164.
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.