SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Robotic versus open surgery for gallbladder cancer: a meta-analysis of propensity-score-matched studies.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- Review
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
Background: The use of robotic surgery for gallbladder cancer (GBC) has increased in recent years. However, concerns remain regarding the safety and oncologic efficacy of robotic-assisted surgery for GBC. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic radical cholecystectomy (RRC) versus open radical cholecystectomy (ORC). Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify available research published up to January 13, 2026. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: A total of 5 propensity-score-matched studies including 629 participants (RRC group: 202 patients; ORC group: 427 patients) were included. Compared with the ORC group, the RRC group had fewer major complications (OR, 0.42), lower VAS scores (MD, -0.53), less intraoperative blood loss (MD, -114.77 mL), and shorter hospital stay (MD, -2.92 days). No significant differences were observed between the groups in mortality (OR, 1.38), overall morbidity (OR, 0.75), operative time (MD, 2.11 min), number of harvested lymph nodes (MD, 0.13), R0 resection (OR, 1.14), blood transfusion (OR, 0.25), readmission (OR, 1.22), 3-year survival rate (OR, 1.01), 5-year survival rate (OR, 1.04), 3-year disease-free survival (OR, 1.02), or 5-year disease-free survival (OR, 1.13). Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that robotic surgery is a safe and effective approach for the surgical management of GBC, with postoperative and survival outcomes comparable to those of open surgery. Additionally, robotic surgery may be associated with shorter hospital stay, fewer major complications, reduced intraoperative blood loss, and lower VAS scores compared with open surgery. Further randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm the potential advantages of RRC over ORC. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420261364335.
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.