SynthesisJournal of gastric cancer2025
Clinical Outcomes According to Surgical Strategies in Proximal Early Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of gastric cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intermediate-Term Oncological, Anastomotic and Nutritional Outcomes of the Sutureless L-Shaped Esophagojejunostomy with Endoscopic Assistance (SLEJ) in Totally Laparoscopic Total Gastrectomy: A Follow-Up Analysis of This Technique.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- ASO Author Reflections: Robotic Proximal Gastrectomy with Double-Tract Reconstruction and En-Bloc Distal Pancreatectomy: Balancing Oncologic Efficacy and Functional Preservation in Locally Advanced Gastroesophageal Junction Tumors.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Robotic Multivisceral Resection for Gastroesophageal Junction Tumor: Proximal Gastrectomy with Double-Tract Reconstruction and Distal Pancreatectomy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMany surgical methods have been developed for the optimal treatment of proximal early gastric cancer (GC); however, these approaches are still controversial. Proximal gastrectomy with direct esophagogastrostomy (EG), double-tract reconstruction (DTR), and double flap-technique (DFT) are considered function-preserving surgeries for proximal early GC rather than total gastrectomy (TG). We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing EG, DTR, DFT, and TG to determine the surgical strategy for proximal GC. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies that compared at least two of the following: EG, DTR, DFT, and TG. Then, we conducted a frequentist network meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical outcomes of 4 surgical methods.
resultsWe included 38 studies and 3,497 patients. In this study, 15.4% of patients underwent EG, 39.2% DTR, 10.9% DFT, and 34.5% TG. Reflux esophagitis was statistically higher in EG than it was in DFT and DTR. Anastomotic stenosis was significantly lower in DTR than it was in EG. The 12-month postoperative hemoglobin level was the highest in DFT. DTR showed a significantly higher level than EG and TG. TG had the significantly lowest postoperative 12-month total protein level. For operative time, DFT showed the longest duration, and DTR showed a significantly longer duration than EG. For the first flatus time, DFT was the fastest, and DTR was significantly faster than TG. Regarding hospital length of stay, DFT was statistically shorter than the others.
conclusionsDTR and DFT are more favorable methods than EG and TG, each with distinct advantages.
trial registrationPROSPERO Identifier: CRD42024598575.
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.