Dataset Information

The quality of research synthesis in surgery: the case of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses populate the literature on the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. The utility of this body of work is unclear. The objective of this study was to synthesize all such systematic reviews in terms of clinical effectiveness, to appraise their quality, and to determine whether areas of duplication exist across reviews.

Methods

Systematic reviews comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer were identified using a comprehensive search protocol (1991 to 2008). The primary outcome was overall survival. The methodological quality of reviews was appraised using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. Abstraction and quality appraisal was carried out by two independent reviewers. Reviews were synthesized, and outcomes were compared qualitatively. A citation analysis was carried out using simple matrices to assess the comprehensiveness of each review.

Results

In total, 27 reviews were included; 13 reviews included only randomized controlled trials. Rectal cancer was addressed exclusively by four reviews. There was significant overlap between review purposes, populations and, outcomes. The mean AMSTAR score (out of 11) was 5.8 (95% CI: 4.6 to 7.0). Overall survival was evaluated by ten reviews, none of which found a significant difference. Three reviews provided a selective meta-analysis of time-to-event data. Previously published systematic reviews were poorly and highly selectively referenced (mean citation ratio 0.16, 95% CI: 0.093 to 0.22). Previously published trials were not comprehensively identified and cited (mean citation ratio 0.56, 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.65).

Conclusions

Numerous overlapping systematic reviews of laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer exist in the literature. Despite variable methods and quality, survival outcomes are congruent across reviews. A duplication of research efforts appears to exist in the literature. Further systematic reviews or meta-analyses are unlikely to be justified without specifying a significantly different research objective. This works lends support to the registration and updating of systematic reviews.

SUBMITTER: Martel G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3351744 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The quality of research synthesis in surgery: the case of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

Martel Guillaume G Duhaime Suleena S Barkun Jeffrey S JS Boushey Robin P RP Ramsay Craig R CR Fergusson Dean A DA

Systematic reviews 20120217

<h4>Background</h4>Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses populate the literature on the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. The utility of this body of work is unclear. The objective of this study was to synthesize all such systematic reviews in terms of clinical effectiveness, to appraise their quality, and to determine whether areas of duplication exist across reviews.<h4>Methods</h4>Systematic reviews comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cance ...[more]

PMID: 22588035

Similar Datasets

Project description:Fast-track surgery (FTS), a multimodal rehabilitation technique, has been recommended as surgical therapy for colorectal cancer. The objective of the present study was to compare the outcomes of FTS and conventional laparoscopic surgery. This study was a blinded randomized trial. A total of 70 patients with colorectal cancer were divided into two groups and underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection. The FTS group consisted of 31 patients and the control group consisted of 39 patients. Protocols for the treatment of the FTS group included skipping pre-operative mechanical bowel preparation, early restoration of diet and early post-operative ambulation. Outcome measures, length of hospital stay, post-operative surgical stress response [C-reactive protein (CRP)] and post-operative complications were compared between the two groups. The average length of total hospital stay for the FTS and the control groups was 5.9±0.8 and 10.9±1.3 days, respectively (P<0.05), and the length of post-operative hospital stay for the FTS and control group was 4.3±0.8 and 8.0±1.1 days, respectively. (P<0.05) First flatus time for the FTS and control groups was 1.6±0.8 and 2.5±0.9 days, respectively (P<0.05). Defecation time for the FTS and control groups was 2.2±0.7 and 4.5±0.7 days, respectively (P<0.05). The time to restoration of a solid diet also showed a significant difference between the FTS and control groups (1.1±0.3 vs. 3.6±0.9 days; P<0.05). Following surgery, due to post-operative surgical stress, the two groups CRP levels increased significantly, but the levels of the FTS group were lower than those of the conventional control group (P<0.05). There was no difference in post-operative complications between the FTS and control groups. This study confirms that FTS shortens hospital stay and accelerates the recovery of bowel function without increase of post-operative complications. FTS is safe, improves post-operative recovery and is a better option than conventional laparoscopic surgery for treating colorectal cancer patients.

Project description:ImportanceSurgery represents the mainstay treatment of colorectal liver metastases. Indications for the laparoscopic approach in this setting have been widened and there is a need to confirm the benefits of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) in patients with complex disease states.ObjectiveTo compare outcomes of laparoscopic surgery with those of open surgery for liver metastases from colorectal cancer, focusing on the characteristics of modern MILS and therefore overcoming possible selection bias related to different policies for patients' eligibility for MILS over time.Design, setting, and participantsA cohort study of 885 resections performed for liver metastases from colorectal cancer between January 1, 2004, and June 30, 2017, at the Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit of San Raffaele Hospital, Milano, Italy, comprising 187 laparoscopic and 698 open resections. Procedures performed using the MILS approach with a ratio of MILS to total resections per year of more than 30% were considered and were matched by propensity scores (ratio of 1:4) to procedures performed using the open approach with a ratio of MILS to total resections per year of less than 30%.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was short-term outcomes, including morbidity, mortality, functional recovery, and interval between surgery and adjuvant treatments; the secondary end point was long-term outcomes.ResultsAmong this cohort (104 patients in the MILS group; 46 women and 58 men; median age, 62 years [range, 35-81 years]; and 412 patients in the open group; 181 women and 231 men; median age, 60 years [range, 37-80 years]), primary end-point data showed a significantly higher incidence of postoperative morbidity in patients who underwent open resections compared with those who underwent MILS (94 [22.8%] vs 21 [20.2%]; P = .04). Patients in the MILS group had fewer major complications (Dindo-Clavien grades III-V) compared with patients in the open group (Dindo-Clavien grades III-V; 7 [6.7%] vs 35 [8.5%]; P = .03) as well as shorter lengths of stay (median [range] duration, 3 [2-35] vs 5 [4-37] days; P = .02). Oncologic results were not compromised by the laparoscopic approach.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, the results of the propensity score matching analysis between modern laparoscopic surgery and previous open surgery appear to confer more comparable cohorts for complexity, further supporting the advantages of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. The increase in use that laparoscopy has experienced appears to be based on increased feasibility, widening of eligibility criteria for patients, enhanced clinical effectiveness, and oncologic outcomes. All these elements together suggest that up to 70% of patients appear to be candidates for this minimally invasive surgical approach in high-volume centers.

Dataset Information

The quality of research synthesis in surgery: the case of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The quality of research synthesis in surgery: the case of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets