ArticleBMJ open2026
Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary adenocarcinomas: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial in China.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05788029 (Comparing Laparoscopic and Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Nonpancreatic Periampullary Adenocarcinomas), which is not on this 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.
Comparing Laparoscopic and Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Nonpancreatic Periampullary Adenocarcinomas
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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is the preferred surgical approach for resectable periampullary carcinomas. Non-pancreatic periampullary carcinomas (NPPC) demonstrate distinct biological behaviours and are generally less aggressive than pancreatic cancer. Despite over three decades of advancements, the role of laparoscopic PD (LPD) remains debated. Few studies have directly compared LPD and open PD (OPD) while accounting for tumour invasiveness, and the data specifically evaluating LPD vs OPD for NPPC are limited. Randomised controlled trials are necessary to determine whether therapeutic outcomes differ between LPD and OPD in NPPC patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The TJDBPS14 trial is a prospective, randomised controlled, open-label, multicentre non-inferiority study with a parallel-group design. All participating surgeons have performed at least 104 LPD and OPD procedures. A total of 212 selected patients diagnosed with NPPC and eligible for PD will be randomly assigned to either LPD or OPD. The primary outcome is postoperative hospital stay, with secondary outcomes including 1-year survival rate, perioperative outcomes, incidence of perioperative complications, short-term outcomes and quality of life. The hypothesis is that the postoperative hospital stay for the LPD group will not exceed that of the OPD group. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, with independent third-party monitoring. The results of the trial will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05788029. Registered on 30 November 2022.
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.