Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41408500›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025

Comparative analysis of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy, a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Nasir Ali Shah, Laiba Ali, Rafi Ullah, Ayaz Arif, Asif Khan, Jawad Khan, Obaid Ur Rahman, Rahim Ullah, Moneeba Shaheen, Zoya Batool and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

12 authors.

Nasir Ali ShahKhyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Laiba AliKhyber Medical College, Peshawar, Pakistan. laibaali1004@gmail.com.
Rafi UllahKhyber Medical College, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Ayaz ArifKhyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Asif KhanHayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Jawad KhanKhyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Obaid Ur RahmanKhyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Rahim UllahKhyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Moneeba ShaheenRiphah International University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Zoya BatoolRiphah International University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Adil JanKhyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Abdul HaseebHayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) may enhance visualization and lymph-node dissection compared with conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (cMIE), but comparative effectiveness remains uncertain. We performed a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-matched cohort studies comparing RAMIE with MIE (from 2013 to August 26th, 2025). PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were searched. Continuous outcomes were pooled as mean differences (MD) and dichotomous outcomes as risk ratio (RR) using randomized-effects models; heterogeneity was assessed with I

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresRobotic Surgical ProceduresBlood Loss, SurgicalHumansLength of StayLymph Node ExcisionOperative TimeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeEsophageal cancerEsophagectomyMinimally invasive surgical proceduresPostoperative complicationsRobotic surgical procedures

Identifiers

PMID41408500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.