ArticleBMJ open2024
Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of recurrence and metastasis of different surgical techniques for non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionLung cancer remains the primary cause of cancer-related deaths on a global scale. Surgery is the main therapeutic option for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the optimal surgical approach for lymph node assessment in NSCLC resection remains controversial, and it is still uncertain whether lymph node dissection (LND) is more effective in reducing recurrence and metastasis rates in NSCLC compared with lymph node sampling (LNS). Therefore, we will conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the recurrence and metastasis of LND versus LNS in patients with NSCLC. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review and meta-analysis will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: The PRISMA Statement. According to the predefined inclusion criteria, we will conduct a comprehensive search for randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies examining the recurrence and metastasis of LND compared with LNS in patients with NSCLC. A literature search from inception in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, SINOMED, VIP and Web of Science will be done. There will be no limitations on language, and the search will be undertaken on 30 August 2024, with regular search for new studies. Additionally, relevant literature references will be retrieved and hand-searching of pertinent journals will be conducted. The main outcomes include overall recurrence rate, local recurrence rate and distant metastasis rate. The supplementary outcomes encompass the rates of regional recurrence and lymph node metastasis. Two independent reviewers will perform screening, data extraction and quality assessment. Our reviewers will perform subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias analysis to evaluate the heterogeneity and robustness. Review Manager 5.4 will be applied in analysing and synthesising. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation will be used to assess the quality of evidence for the whole study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is dispensable for this study since no private information of the participants will be involved. The findings of the present study will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal or conference presentation. STUDY REGISTRATION: The protocol of the systematic review has been registered on Open Science Framework, with a registration doi: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/S2FT5.
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.