SynthesisBMC surgery2026
Comparison of open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survival outcomes.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 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
aimTo systematically evaluate the impact of open versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy on survival outcomes in cervical cancer patients.
methodsRelevant literature from the past 10 years was searched in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Clinical studies comparing open radical hysterectomy (ORH) and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) were included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A meta-analysis was performed to compare survival outcomes between ORH and MIS, with subgroup analysis stratified by tumor size (≤ 2 cm vs. > 2 cm).
resultsFifteen clinical studies met the inclusion criteria. All observational studies scored ≥ 7 on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Patients undergoing ORH showed significantly improved 5-year disease-free survival compared with MIS (OR = 1.70 [1.27, 2.27], P < 0.001, I² = 58%). However, no significant difference was observed in overall survival between the two surgical approaches (OR = 1.08 [0.90, 1.15], P > 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed no significant differences in overall survival between ORH and MIS, regardless of tumor size (≤ 2 cm: HR = 1.10 [0.28, 4.31], P = 0.89; >2 cm: HR = 0.82 [0.38, 1.77], P = 0.61).
conclusionsThese findings suggest that open radical hysterectomy is associated with better disease-free survival, whereas overall survival does not differ significantly between the two approaches.
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.