Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastric Resections for Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We conducted a meta-analysis to compare surgical and oncologic outcomes of patients with gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) undergoing laparoscopic resection surgery (LAP) and open resection surgery (OPEN). METHODS: PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane, CNKI, and Chinese Biomedical Database were searched. Statistical analysis was carried out by RevMan 5.0 software. The quality of evidence was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A decision tree analysis model was constructed to evaluate the treatment strategy. RESULTS: Seventeen studies involving 776 participants were included for the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis results showed that, compared with OPEN, LAP indicates potentially favorable outcomes in terms of intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD), -60.67; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), -116.66 to -4.69], time to first flatus (WMD, -1.19; 95% CI, -1.65 to -0.73), time to oral intake (WMD, -1.26; 95% CI, -1.89 to -0.63), and hospital stay (WMD, -2.62; 95% CI, -3.25 to -1.99). There were no differences in terms of the operative time, overall complication, and recurrence. Decision analysis showed that LAP was the strategy with a higher overall success (93%) compared with OPEN (88%). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that LAP for gastric GISTs was associated with less blood loss, earlier return of bowel function, earlier resumption of diet, and shorter length of hospital stay when compared with OPEN; however, LAP and OPEN had similar operative time, overall complication, and recurrence. The LAP might be superior to OPEN for the patients with GIST <5 cm. Methodologically, high-quality comparative studies are needed for further evaluation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".