ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2026
The expert consensus document on minimally invasive upper lobectomy for lung cancer in China.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive upper lobectomy is recognized as a standard surgical intervention for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Nevertheless, there is a paucity of evidence-based technical standards regarding anatomical sequences, the scope of lymphadenectomy, and perioperative management in the context of upper lobectomy. Methods: A multidisciplinary team comprising thoracic surgeons from 12 tertiary centers across China was assembled. A systematic review of evidence from 33 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 11 additional studies specific to the upper lobe [1996-2026] was conducted. Recommendations were developed in accordance with the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) criteria and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) framework, employing a modified Delphi consensus process. The study protocol was prospectively registered under PREPARE-2026CN207. Results: The consensus resulted in the formulation of nine graded statements. Strong recommendations (grade A) advocate for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) or robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) as the standard surgical techniques, with the requirement for systematic lymphadenectomy. Moderate recommendations (grade B) delineate optimal airway management, enhanced perioperative care protocols, and customized nodal dissection strategies. These strategies specifically differentiate between early-stage ground-glass opacity (GGO) dominant tumors and invasive carcinoma to inform selective omission of lymph node stations. Expert consensus (grade C) defines surgical indications and establishes standardized anatomical dissection sequences for upper lobectomies. Conclusions: This consensus provides a comprehensive, evidence-based framework for the standardization of minimally invasive upper lobectomy in NSCLC. Although core surgical approaches and systematic lymphadenectomy are supported by high-level evidence, tailored nodal management and anatomical sequencing remain dependent on expert consensus, underscoring essential directions for future clinical trials.
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.