SynthesisBMC surgery2024
Meta-analysis of robotic-assisted NOSE versus traditional TWSR in colorectal cancer surgery: postoperative outcomes and efficacy.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
backgroundThis meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSE) compared to traditional robotic transabdominal wall specimen retrieval surgery (TWSR) for colorectal cancer.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Embase) from inception to August 2023. Primary outcomes included postoperative complications, the number of lymph nodes harvested, overall survival and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included the postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score, the additional use of analgesics, the restoration of gastrointestinal function, blood loss, the mean operation time, and length of postoperative hospital stay.
resultsIn this meta-analysis, a total of 717 patients from 6 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with the TWSR group, the NOSE group had greater benefits in terms of overall postoperative complications [odds ratios (OR) 0.55; 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.34 to 0.89; P = 0.01, I
conclusionThis meta-analysis showed that the NOSE group had better postoperative outcomes than did the TWSR group and that NOSE was a safe and viable alternative to TWSR. More large-sample reviews and further randomized trials are warranted.
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.