SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Long-term oncologic outcomes after non-intubated versus intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (NIVATS) is increasingly used for selected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, but its long-term oncologic outcomes versus conventional VATS remain unclear. We therefore conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare long-term oncologic outcomes between NIVATS and conventional intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Methods: We searched major databases and trial registries through June 30, 2026 for comparative studies evaluating NIVATS or spontaneous ventilation VATS versus intubated or mechanical ventilation VATS in NSCLC. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival or recurrence-free survival (DFS/RFS). Secondary oncologic outcomes included recurrence, R0 resection, total lymph node assessment, N1 and N2 lymph node assessment, and lymph node station or group assessment. Hazard ratios (HRs), risk ratios (RRs), and mean differences (MDs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Results: Seventeen comparative studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. NIVATS was associated with lower pooled hazards for OS compared with intubated VATS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48-0.91; I Conclusions: In selected NSCLC patients, NIVATS does not appear to compromise long-term oncologic outcomes versus conventional intubated VATS. The observed survival advantage likely reflects selection bias and residual confounding, as NIVATS is often used in patients with favorable tumor features, operative suitability, or cardiopulmonary reserve. These findings support NIVATS as feasible under strict selection by experienced teams. Prospective multicenter studies with standardized protocols and long-term follow-up are needed to confirm its oncologic safety. Systematic review registration: crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420261437783, identifier CRD420261437783.
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.