Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36622784›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2023

Robot-assisted versus open hepatectomy for liver tumors: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Qian Xuea, Jianping Wua, Zehua Leia, Qing Wanga, Jinqiang Fua, Fengwei Gaoa

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Pelvic organ prolapse: Minimally invasive approach.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2023
    Article
  11. Minimally invasive surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Qian XueaDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, People's Hospital of Leshan, Sichuan Leshan, China.
Jianping Wua
Zehua Leia
Qing Wanga
Jinqiang Fua
Fengwei Gaoa

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted hepatectomy (RAH) versus open hepatectomy (OH) for liver tumors (LT).

methodsA computer-based literature search was conducted to identify all randomized or nonrandomized controlled trials of RAH and OH in the treatment of LT from January 2000 to July 2022. Study-specific effect sizes and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined to calculate the pooled values, using a fixed-effects or random-effects model.

resultsEight studies were included, with a combined total of 1079 patients. Compared with the OH group, the RAH group was found to involve less blood loss (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -152.52 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -266.85 to 38.18; p = 0.009), shorter hospital stay (SMD = -2.79; 95% CI = -4.19 to -1.40; p < 0.001), a lower rate of postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR] =0.67; 95% CI = 0.47-0.95; p = 0.02), and a lower recurrence rate (OR = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.23-0.77; p = 0.005). However, operative time was longer in the RAH group than in the OH group (SMD = 70.55; 95% CI = 37.58-103.53; p < 0.001).

conclusionThis systematic review shows that RAH is safe and feasible in the treatment of LT.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyLiver NeoplasmsRoboticsBlood Loss, SurgicalHepatectomyHumansLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID36622784
PMCPMC9994574

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.