SynthesisUpdates in surgery2020
The role of bursectomy in the surgical management of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in Updates in surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gastrectomy with or without Complete Omentectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Pooled it
- Does total omentectomy prevent peritoneal seeding for advanced gastric cancer with serosal invasion?Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In order to delineate the exact role of bursectomy (BS) in gastric cancer surgery, we designed and conducted the present meta-analysis. This meta-analysis adhered to the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A systematic literature review of the electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science) was performed. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was introduced for the validation of the pooled analyses. The level of evidence was attributed based on the GRADE approach. Overall, nine studies and 3599 patients were included in our meta-analysis. BS did not lead to an increase in the overall morbidity rate (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97-1.42, p = 0.09). Equivalence was, also, identified in all specific postoperative complications. Similarly, mortality rates were comparable (p = 0.69). Moreover, BS was related to a significantly higher operative time (p < 0.001) and perioperative blood loss (p = 0.002). Finally, resection of the omental bursa was not associated with improved R0 excision rates (p = 0.92), lymph node harvest (p = 0.1) or survival outcomes (OS p = 0.15 and DFS p = 0.97). BS displayed a suboptimal perioperative performance without any significant oncological efficacy. Due to certain limitations and the low level of evidence, further high-quality RCTs are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.