Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41001611›Full record

ReviewO&G open2024

Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Management of Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Farr Nezhat, Camille Briskin, Nisha Lakhi, Rongwei Fu, Tanja Pejovic

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in O&G open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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.

Farr NezhatWeill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York University, Langone Hospital, Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, New York Medical College School of Medicine, Valhalla, and Richmond University Medical Center, Staten Island, New York; the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, Massachusetts; and the School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and Providence Medical Center, Medford, Oregon.
Camille BriskinWeill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York University, Langone Hospital, Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, New York Medical College School of Medicine, Valhalla, and Richmond University Medical Center, Staten Island, New York; the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, Massachusetts; and the School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and Providence Medical Center, Medford, Oregon.
Nisha LakhiWeill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York University, Langone Hospital, Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, New York Medical College School of Medicine, Valhalla, and Richmond University Medical Center, Staten Island, New York; the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, Massachusetts; and the School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and Providence Medical Center, Medford, Oregon.
Rongwei FuWeill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York University, Langone Hospital, Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, New York Medical College School of Medicine, Valhalla, and Richmond University Medical Center, Staten Island, New York; the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, Massachusetts; and the School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and Providence Medical Center, Medford, Oregon.
Tanja PejovicWeill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York University, Langone Hospital, Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, New York Medical College School of Medicine, Valhalla, and Richmond University Medical Center, Staten Island, New York; the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, Massachusetts; and the School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and Providence Medical Center, Medford, Oregon.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine perioperative and survival outcomes of patients with ovarian cancer managed by minimally invasive surgery compared with laparotomy in the context of 1) early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer, 2) primary cytoreduction for advanced disease, and 3) interval debulking after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted PubMed, MEDLINE and ClinicalTrials.gov, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and meeting abstract libraries (International Gynecological Cancer Society, Society of Gynecologic Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology) from 1994, the year of the first published laparoscopic clinical study in ovarian cancer, to May 2024. Studies that compared minimally invasive surgery with laparotomy for staging of ovarian cancer and reported perioperative or survival outcomes data were included. Single-arm studies, case studies, meeting abstracts, and studies involving borderline tumors, fertility-sparing surgery, or management of recurrent disease were excluded. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Three authors independently screened citations for relevance and inclusion and exclusion criteria and assessed the risk of bias of individual studies using the methodologic index for nonrandomized studies criteria for nonrandomized studies. TABULTATION INTEGRATION AND

resultsFrom a total of 2,777 identified citations, 36 nonrandomized studies were included: 21 early-stage, five primary debulking for advanced stages, seven interval debulking after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and three with heterogeneous populations. No randomized studies were identified. For early-stage cancer, nine studies found no difference in progression-free survival (risk ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% CI, 1.00-1.10,

conclusionThe inclusion of observational studies in this analysis with a fair amount of bias warrants caution in the interpretation of the findings. However, minimally invasive surgery may offer some perioperative advantages over laparotomy and may be an acceptable alternative for selected patients. For early-stage disease, there was no difference in survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and laparotomy. For those with advanced disease, rates of optimal debulking were similar. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42022359051.

Identifiers

PMID41001611
PMCPMC12456587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.