SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024
Different surgical methods of hysterectomy for the management of endometrial cancer: a systematic review and network 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic versus open (or laparoscopic) hysterectomy: a comprehensive review of clinical, surgical, and economic outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Different Hysterectomy Approaches for the Treatment of Endometrial Cancer.Cancers · 2026Article
- A novel internal fixation system for sacral fractures: a finite element biomechanical study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
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
Background: Emerging surgical methods are utilized to treat endometrial cancer. The study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of four common surgical methods of hysterectomy. Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library databases, Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science from their inception until April 30, 2024. We used hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS) and disease-free (DFS), odds ratios (OR) for categorical outcomes, and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. These were pooled in Bayesian network meta-analysis models. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to illuminate the probability that each method would be the best for each outcome. Results: Thirty studies comprising 13446 patients were included. Robotic hysterectomy (RH) retrieved fewer pelvic lymph nodes than open hysterectomy (OH). OH showed a significantly higher postoperative complication rate than laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and RH. LH had a higher intraoperative complication rate than OH. According to SUCRA values, OH ranked the highest in the number of retrieved pelvic lymph nodes (0.89), intraoperative complications (0.73), and operative time (0.97). LH ranked the highest in DFS (0.81) and overall survival (OS) (0.87). RH ranked the highest in the postoperative complications (0.95). Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) ranked the highest in number of retrieved para-aortic lymph nodes (0.72). Conclusions: There are no significant differences among the four surgical methods in DFS or OS. The use of uterine manipulators does not affect prognosis. OH is the best method for shortening operative time, dissecting the pelvic lymph nodes and controlling intraoperative complications. LH and LAVH have an advantage in para-aortic lymph node dissection. Besides, LH has the best advantage in DFS and OS. RH has advantages in controlling surgical complications. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42024529974.
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.