SynthesisBMC cancer2025
Robotic single site versus robotic multiport hysterectomy in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reduced-port robotic surgery versus multiport robotic surgery in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
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
objectiveThis meta-analysis aims to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) with robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) in treating endometrial cancer.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature search across several databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang, and the Chinese Science and Technology Journal Full Text Database (VIP). The search covered literature from inception until October 17, 2024. The primary outcomes included intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, postoperative pain scores, and satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes. The secondary outcomes included operative time (min), estimated blood loss (ml), hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion, conversion, postoperative hospital stay, lymph nodes harvested, sentinel lymph node identification, recurrence, and mortality during follow-up. Data analysis was performed using random-effects or fixed-effects models, calculating combined risk ratios (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).
resultsFive studies describing a total of 448 patients were retained and included for this meta-analysis. No significant differences were found between RSSH and RMPH regarding intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and postoperative pain scores. There were also no differences in terms of operation time, estimated blood loss, hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion, conversion, postoperative hospital stay, lymph nodes harvested, and sentinel lymph node identification.
conclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that RSSH is effective and safe for the treatment of endometrial cancer, as it is generally equivalent to RMPH regarding perioperative outcomes.
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.