ArticleTzu chi medical journal
Comparison of survival between open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomies for stage IB1 cervical cancer (≤2 cm): A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Tzu chi medical journal. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Cervical cancer remains a leading cause of death among women globally, with surgery being a key treatment for early-stage disease. However, the survival outcomes (disease-free survival [DFS] and overall survival [OS]) of patients with early-stage cervical cancer treated using different surgical methods remain controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the survival outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) versus open radical hysterectomy (ORH) for treating early-stage cervical cancer (tumor ≤2 cm). Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from 1960 to 2022 identified 12 retrospective cohort studies for inclusion. The primary outcome included DFS and OS. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated to compare DFS and OS. The Results: The results showed no significant difference between LRH and ORH in a 5-year OS (HR = 1.25; 95% CI, 0.82-1.86; Conclusion: LRH is a safe and effective alternative to ORH for early-stage cervical cancer, with similar survival outcomes. The results may encourage further research into optimizing minimally invasive techniques, potentially influencing the clinical guidelines and promoting the broader adoption of LRH in treating cervical cancer.
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.