SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Comparison of total robotic distal gastrectomy and robot-assisted distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Comment on "Comparison of total robotic distal gastrectomy and robot-assisted distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis".Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Gastric cancer continues to account for a substantial proportion of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Total robotic distal gastrectomy (TRDG) and robot-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) are increasingly used, but their comparative outcomes are not well established. This study followed PRISMA criteria to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis. Searches were carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to July 2025. Outcomes assessed were operation time, hospital stay, incision length, gastrointestinal recovery, blood loss, and complications. Combined odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs), each accompanied by 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were derived through the application of random-effects models. The methodological rigor of each included study was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Four retrospective studies with 773 patients were included. TRDG had a longer operation time (WMD 5.95 min; 95% CI 1.93-9.97; p < 0.05) but showed benefits including shorter hospital stay (WMD - 1.17 days; 95% CI - 2.13 to - 0.21), faster gastrointestinal recovery (WMD - 0.44 days; 95% CI - 1.87 to - 0.01), and smaller incisions (WMD - 2.95 cm; 95% CI - 3.88 to - 2.02). No meaningful differences were identified between the groups regarding intraoperative blood loss or the incidence of postoperative complications. TRDG provides advantages in recovery and wound size without increasing complications, supporting its use as a safe alternative to RADG. Further prospective research is needed to validate these results and to assess long-term outcomes comprehensively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40760388What 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.