SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2025
The efficacy of non-complete omentectomy in the radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurgery is considered a necessary treatment for gastric cancer (GC), but the extent of resection remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of non-complete omentectomy (NCO) in GC patients undergoing radical gastrectomy.
methodsWe searched for studies of non-complete omentectomy versus complete omentectomy (CO) published before February 2024 from PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. From the extracted clinical data, we compared surgical, survival, and recurrence outcomes between the two groups.
resultsThirteen studies with a total of 4255 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that compared with the CO group, the NCO group was associated with a lower overall recurrence rate, shorter operative time, and fewer postoperative complications. However, there was no significant difference in the number of harvested lymph nodes and peritoneal recurrence rate between the two groups. The NCO group was associated with the higher 3-year overall survival (OS) rate (RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.91-0.99, P = 0.02), 5-year OS rate (RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.87-0.96, P = 0.0006), and 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate (RR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.87-0.99, P = 0.02). However, it was not associated with the 3-year RFS rate (RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.89-1.01, P = 0.12) compared with the CO group.
conclusionRegarding surgical, survival, and recurrence outcomes, performing NCO versus CO during radical gastrectomy provides no significant advantage. However, future high-quality and well-designed randomized controlled trials are necessary to validate the results.
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.