ArticleScientific reports2025
Cost-effectiveness of open vs. laparoscopic gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer in China.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer based on TNM stage: a Markov model.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Cost‑effectiveness analysis of indocyanine green fluorescence imaging-guided laparoscopic lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer in China.Surgical endoscopy · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) poses a significant surgical challenge. While laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) offers potential advantages, its cost-effectiveness relative to open gastrectomy (OG) in China remains uncertain. To compare the cost-effectiveness of LG and OG for LAGC in China. A Markov model compared the cost-effectiveness of LG and OG for LAGC. Probabilities and utilities were derived from published literature. Direct medical costs were obtained from the First Hospital of Lanzhou University. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥268,074/QALY. Sensitivity analyses assessed model robustness. Across 1-, 3-, and 5-year time horizons, OG had lower total costs and greater effectiveness than LG for LAGC. At 5 years, OG had a total cost of ¥128,259 and 7.20 QALYs versus LG's ¥136,668 and 7.18 QALYs; the ICER for OG was -¥474,758/QALY. OG dominated at the ¥268,074 willingness-to-pay threshold. Sensitivity analysis indicated that variations in LG and OG costs minimally influenced the cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, performed across 10,000 iterations, consistently identified OG as the optimal strategy (100% of iterations). From a Chinese health economics perspective-a framework essential for informing national healthcare resource allocation-OG consistently demonstrated a superior cost-effectiveness compared with LG for LAGC across 1, 3, and 5 years. This longitudinal observation of sustained cost-effectiveness persisted despite the statistically insignificant differences in overall costs and effectiveness between the two procedures.
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.