SynthesisBJS open2026
Prognostic impact of low versus high inferior mesenteric artery ligation in rectosigmoid cancer: individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Synthesis in BJS open, 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
backgroundThe optimal level of inferior mesenteric artery ligation in rectosigmoid cancer surgery remains a matter of debate. This study evaluated the prognostic impact of low ligation (LL) versus high ligation (HL) after rectal or sigmoid cancer resection.
methodsA reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was performed using restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD) estimation. PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Library, and Google Scholar were searched. Primary outcomes were 5-year overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The RMSTD, risk ratio (RR), standardized mean difference (SMD), and 95% confidence interval (c.i.) were used as pooled effect size measures. The certainty of evidence was categorized with the GRADE framework.
resultsOverall, 1152 patients from five RCTs were included; 34% underwent LL. Baseline demographics and pathological tumour stage were balanced among the LL and HL groups. At the 60-month follow-up, the OS and DFS estimates for LL versus HL were 1.40 months (95% c.i. -0.18 to 2.98; moderate level of certainty) and 0.71 months (95% c.i. -1.55 to 3.03; moderate level of certainty). Anastomotic leak (RR 0.71), overall complications (RR 0.79), total number of lymph nodes retrieved (SMD 0.01), and operating time (SMD 0.08) were comparable.
conclusionThis meta-analysis did not detect a statistically significant difference in 5-year OS and DFS between LL and HL in patients with rectosigmoid cancer.
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.