SynthesisMedicine2026
Minimally invasive surgery versus thoracotomy for locally advanced lung cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical efficacy and safety of video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus wedge resection in elderly patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.American journal of cancer research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLocally advanced lung cancer is generally regarded as a relative contraindication for minimally invasive surgical approaches. The comparative outcomes between minimally invasive techniques and conventional open thoracotomy in this specific patient population have not been adequately investigated through rigorous clinical studies.
methodsWe systematically searched Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science for studies comparing minimally invasive (robotic and laparoscopic) approaches with conventional open thoracotomy. Pooled standard mean differences, relative risks, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024526598).
resultsThere were 7819 participants including 15 articles. Compared with open thoracotomy, patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) demonstrated significantly shorter operative time (SMD = 0.13; 95% CI = 0.01-0.24; I2=49.9%, P = .036) and reduced hospital stay (SMD = -0.19; 95% CI = -0.24 to -0.14; I2=45.6%, P < .001). However, no significant differences were observed in blood loss, ICU days, chest tube duration, lymph node resected, lymph node total stations, complications, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), atrial arrhythmia, chylothorax, prolonged air leak, pneumonia, and overall recurrence.
conclusionMIS demonstrates significant advantages over thoracotomy in terms of operative time and hospital stay for locally advanced lung cancer. However, no statistically significant differences were observed in blood loss, ICU days, chest tube duration, lymph nodes resected, lymph nodes total stations, complications, ARDS, atrial arrhythmia, chylothorax, prolonged air leak, pneumonia, and overall recurrence. More high-quality literature is needed to be included in the research in the future.
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.