SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2025
Effect of simple vs. extended cholecystectomy on prognosis of T1b gallbladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & aims: Extended cholecystectomy (EC) is recommended for T1b gallbladder cancer (GBC), but the optimal surgical procedure for T1b GBC remains controversial. This study aims to compare the prognosis of T1b GBC patients who underwent simple cholecystectomy (SC) vs. EC from a long-term survival perspective. Methods: We performed a systematic search up to August 06, 2024, using MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. The main outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). We evaluated the quality of the studies included and the risk of bias, calculated the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and DSS and conducted the sensitivity analysis. Results: A total of 8 retrospective studies involving 2,097 T1b GBC patients (SC = 1,263, EC = 408) were included. The pooled result of OS showed that the EC group had a significantly better OS than the SC group (pooled HR = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.59-0.89; Conclusions: EC should be chosen as the optimal surgical procedure for patients with T1b GBC from the standpoint of long-term postoperative survival. However, further analysis of more comprehensive studies will be necessary in the future to improve the quality of evidence. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023449431, PROSPERO CRD42023449431.
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.