SynthesisANZ journal of surgery
Effectiveness of prophylactic central compartment neck dissection following hemithyroidectomy in papillary thyroid cancer: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in ANZ journal of surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn this study, we aimed to assess the effect of prophylactic central compartment neck dissection (pCCND) in conjunction with hemithyroidectomy (HT) for clinically low-risk node-negative (cN0) papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC).
methodsA thorough literature search was performed utilizing PubMed and EMBASE for articles published until October 2023. Subsequently, a meta-analysis was performed on studies involving patients with cN0 PTC, with postoperative locoregional recurrence (LRR) and survival data, treated with HT + pCCND or HT. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024560962).
resultsWe included seven studies in this meta-analysis, including 2132 patients who met the inclusion criteria: six retrospective cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial. The HT + pCCND group consisted of 1090 cases, and the HT group had 1042 cases. The LRR rates after HT with or without pCCND were similar (3.58% vs. 4.51%; odds ratio (OR) = 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.41-1.03). Five of the seven studies provided prognostic and survival data, particularly the log hazard ratio (log HR) of disease-free survival (DFS) between the two groups. There was also no significant difference in terms of DFS between the HT + pCCND and HT groups (OR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.42-1.07).
conclusionsThere was no significant difference in LRR and DFS between the HT + pCCND and HT groups. pCCND did not demonstrate significant efficacy in improving oncological outcomes for low-risk patients with cN0 PTC. Therefore, for patients with low-risk cN0 PTC, thyroid surgeons should make reasonable and individualized decisions regarding the extent of surgical removal.
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.