ReviewCureus2026
Complete Mesocolic Excision Compared With Conventional Right Hemicolectomy for Colorectal Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Cohorts.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the results of complete mesocolic excision (CME) versus the traditional right hemicolectomy to treat right colon cancer. The major purpose was to determine variations with respect to lymph node yield, survival, morbidity, mortality, and the time and length of hospital stay. In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a literature search was implemented using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases to identify observational cohort studies published between January 2015 and June 2025. Studies were included in the review if they were published in English and contained comparative data. In total, six observational studies were included with approximately 710 participants. Two reviewers completed data extraction, and a random-effects model was used to conduct the analysis. The overall mean variation in the number of locations of lymph nodes was in favor of CME. The CME group had an average time that was an estimated 22 minutes longer. The two groups were not significantly different in terms of postoperative morbidity and mortality. The trend of superiority shown by CME in pooled five-year overall survival and disease-free survival was not statistically significant. The level of risk of bias, as measured using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, was low to moderate, and funnel plots did not suggest the presence of significant publication bias. These results indicate that CME can provide an oncologic benefit without affecting safety. However, additional large-scale prospective studies, which are methodologically sound, are needed to verify these observations.
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.