Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for FIGO stage 1 ovarian cancer (Review)
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Over the past ten years laparoscopy has become an increasingly common approach for the surgical removal of early stage ovarian tumours. There remains uncertainty about the value of this intervention. This review has been undertaken to assess the available evidence of the benefits and harms of laparoscopic surgery for the management of early stage ovarian cancer compared to laparotomy. Objectives To evaluate the benefits and harms of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of FIGO stage I ovarian cancer (stages Ia, Ib and Ic) when compared with laparotomy. Search methods Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL),TheCochrane Library Issue 2, 2007,MEDLINE (January 1990 toNovember 2007), EMBASE (1990 toNovember 2007), LILACS (1990 toNovember 2007), BIOLOGICALABSTRACTS (1990 toNovember 2007) andCancerlit (1990 toNovember 2007). We also searched our own publication archives, based on prospective handsearching of relevant journals from November 2007. Reference lists of identified studies, gynaecological cancer handbooks and conference abstract were also scanned. Selection criteria Studies including patients with histologically proven stage I ovarian cancer according to the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO). Studies comparing laparoscopic surgery with laparotomy for early stage ovarian cancer were only available from1990. It was anticipated that a very small number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted studying themanagement of early stage ovarian cancer. Therefore, non-randomised comparative studies, cohort studies and case-controls studies, but not studies with historical controls, were also considered. Data collection and analysis Data extraction was performed independently by five review authors (LRM, DDR, MIR, MCB and MIE) who assessed study quality and quality of extracted data. Extracted data included trial characteristics, characteristics of the study participants, interventions and outcomes. The quality of non RCTs was assessed using appropriate quality evaluations tools from the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) and from the Newcastle-Ottawa tool for observational studies (NOS). Main results No RCTs were identified. Three observational studies were identified. Authors’ conclusions This review has found no evidence to help quantify the value of laparoscopy for the management of early stage ovarian cancer as routine clinical practice.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle