ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2025
Minimally invasive
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prevalence and risk factors for postoperative atrial fibrillation following pulmonary resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robot-assisted versus video-assisted surgery for early functional recovery in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-based matching studies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- RoboticJournal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Current advances in extended resections for non-small cell lung cancer-a narrative review.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive chest wall resection (MICWR) has emerged as an alternative to open chest wall resection (OCWR) for lung cancer. This meta-analysis aims to compare perioperative outcomes between MICWR and OCWR in order to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the minimally invasive approach. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted until January 20, 2025, for studies comparing MICWR and OCWR in adult patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The effect measures included odds ratios (ORs) for binary outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed with I Results: Three retrospective studies comprising 2,973 patients were included, with 26.3% undergoing MICWR and 73.7% undergoing OCWR. No significant differences were found in overall mortality [OR 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.95 to 1.32; P=0.17; I Conclusions: MICWR offers comparable oncologic outcomes to OCWR while reducing postoperative complications. It may also shorten LOS in selected patients. However, evidence is limited to retrospective studies, warranting prospective trials to confirm these findings and define optimal criteria.
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.