Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40032664›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025

Comparison of CO

Han Jinyu, Wang Kaiyuan, Wang Zhun, Yue Hui, Duan Xiaofeng

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Han JinyuDepartment of Anesthesiology, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, 300060, China.
Wang KaiyuanDepartment of Anesthesiology, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, 300060, China.
Wang ZhunDepartment of Anesthesiology, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, 300060, China.
Yue HuiDepartment of Anesthesiology, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, 300060, China.
Duan XiaofengDepartment of Esophageal Surgery, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, 300060, China. xduan@tmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7018-3928

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo analyze the effects of different intubation and ventilation modes on left recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph node dissection and postoperative complications in patients undergoing robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE).

methodsOverall, 339 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent RAMIE at Tianjin Medical University Cancer Hospital between June 2017 and December 2021 were selected for this retrospective study. The effects of CO

resultsAmong 339 patients, 111 underwent surgery using CO

conclusionsThe bronchial blocker, one-lung ventilation mode was found to be more advantageous in lymphadenectomies than the CO

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyLymph Node ExcisionPneumothorax, ArtificialRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedCarbon DioxideFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRecurrent Laryngeal NerveRecurrent Laryngeal Nerve InjuriesRetrospective StudiesCarbon DioxideBronchial blockerCO2 artificial pneumothoraxEsophageal cancerLymphadenectomyOne-lung ventilation

Identifiers

PMID40032664

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.