ReviewCureus2024
Endoscopic Versus Surgical Treatment for Ampullary Lesions: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Therapeutic strategies and outcomes in the management of ampullary tumours: meta-analysis.BJS open · 2026Pooled it
- Endoscopic Papillectomy for Ampullary Tumors in Older Patients: Balancing Oncologic Benefit and Geriatric Risk.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ampullary lesions (ALs) can be treated through either an endoscopic approach (EA) or a surgical approach (SA). However, it is important to note that EAs carry a significant risk of incomplete resection, while opting for surgical interventions can result in substantial morbidity. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for R0 resection, recurrence, adverse events in general, major adverse events, mortality, and length of hospital stay between SAs and EAs. Electronic databases were searched from inception to 2023. We identified nine independent studies. The risk difference was -0.32 (95% CI: -0.50, -0.15; p <0.001) for R0, 0.12 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.19; p < 0.001) for recurrence, -0.22 (95% CI: -0.43, 0.00; p 0.05) for overall adverse events, -0.11 (95% CI: -0.32, 0.10; p = 0.31) for major complications, -0.01 (95% CI: -0.02, 0.01; p = 0.43) for mortality, and -14.69 (95% CI: -19.91, -9.47; p < 0.001) for length of hospital stay. As expected, our data suggest a higher complete resection rate and lower recurrence from surgical interventions, but this is associated with an elevated risk of adverse events and a longer hospital stay.
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.