SynthesisBMC surgery2024
A meta-analysis comparing open and minimally invasive cervical tumor surgery wound infection and postoperative complications.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 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
To evaluate the impact of open surgical care (OSC) compared to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) on the occurrence of wound infection (WI) and overall postoperative aggregate complications (POACs) in female cervical cancer (CC) patients, we conducted this meta-analysis study. A thorough examination of the literature up to March 2024 was conducted, and 1849 related studies were examined. The 44 studies that were selected included 11,631 females who had CC. The odds ratio (ORs) and the estimation using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to calculate the impact of open surgical management and MIS on WI and POACs in females with CC, using dichotomous methodologies and a random or fixed model. When comparing MIS to open surgical care, there was a substantial decrease in WI (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.13-0.29, p < 0.001) and POACs (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.38-0.62, p < 0.001) in females with CC. On the other hand, among female patients with CC, MIS did not differ significantly from open surgical care in pelvic infection and abscess (PI&A) incidence (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.31-1.16, p = 0.13). When compared to OSC, women with CC who underwent MIS experienced considerably fewer WI and POACs; however, there was no discernible difference in PI&A rates. However, given several of the designated examinations for the meta-analysis had relatively small sample sizes, caution must be used while handling its values.
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.