The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of standard and extended lymphadenectomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer
Abstract
Background: Although some retrospective studies of extended radical lymphadenectomy for pancreatic cancer have suggested a survival advantage, this is controversial. Methods: A literature search identified randomized controlled trials comparing extended with standard lymphadenectomy in pancreatic cancer surgery. Overall survival was analysed using hazard ratios and standard errors. Pooled estimates of overall treatment effects were calculated using a random effects model (odds ratio and 95 per cent confidence interval). Results: Of four randomized trials identified for systematic review, three were included in a meta-analysis of survival. The log hazard ratios (standard errors) for survival for the three trials were 0·36 (0·22), − 0·15 (0·17) and − 0·21 (0·15); the weighted mean log hazard ratio for survival overall was 0·93 (95 per cent confidence interval 0·77 to 1·13), revealing no significant differences between the standard and extended procedure (P = 0·480). Morbidity and mortality rates were also comparable, with a trend towards higher rates of delayed gastric emptying for extended lymphadenectomy. The number of resected lymph nodes was significantly higher in the extended lymphadenectomy groups (P < 0·001). Conclusion: The extended procedure does not benefit overall survival, and there may even be a trend towards increased morbidity. Therefore extended lymphadenectomy should be performed only within adequately powered controlled trials, if at all.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Extended versus limited lymph nodes dissection technique for adenocarcinoma of the stomach
McCulloch, P. G., Nita, M. E., Kazi, H. A., & Gama-Rodrigues, J. J. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001964.pub3 · Cited by 134
RetractedMeta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Parmar, M. K. B., Torri, V., & Stewart, L. (1998) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19981230)17:24<2815::aid-sim110>3.0.co;2-8 · Cited by 4,802
Yeo, C. J., Cameron, J. L., Lillemoe, K. D., Sohn, T. A., Campbell, K. A., Sauter, P. K., Coleman, J., Abrams, R. A., & Hruban, R. H. (2002) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-200209000-00012 · Cited by 807
Pedrazzoli, S., DiCarlo, V., Dionigi, R., Mosca, F., Pederzoli, P., Pasquali, C., Klöppel, G., Dhaene, K., & Michelassi, F. (1998) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-199810000-00007 · Cited by 692
Farnell, M. B., Pearson, R. K., Sarr, M. G., DiMagno, E. P., Burgart, L. J., Dahl, T. R., Foster, N., Sargent, D. J., & the Pancreas Cancer Working Group (2005) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2005.06.044 · Cited by 482
Ishikawa, O., Ohhigashi, H., Sasaki, Y., Kabuto, T., FUKUDA, I., Furukawa, H., Imaoka, S., & Iwanaga, T. (1988) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-198808000-00014 · Cited by 372
Yeo, C. J., Cameron, J. L., Sohn, T. A., Coleman, J., Sauter, P. K., Hruban, R. H., Pitt, H. A., & Lillemoe, K. D. (1999) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-199905000-00003 · Cited by 359
Knaebel, H. P., Diener, M. K., Wente, M. N., Büchler, M. W., & Seiler, C. M. (2005) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.5000 · Cited by 335
Self-citationISHIKAWA, O., OHIGASHI, H., IMAOKA, S., FURUKAWA, H., SASAKI, Y. O., FUJITA, M., KURODA, C., & IWANAGA, T. (1992) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-199203000-00006 · Cited by 252
Cited by
Kleeff, J., Korc, M., Apte, M., La Vecchia, C., Johnson, C. D., Biankin, A. V., Neale, R. E., Tempero, M., Tuveson, D. A., Hruban, R. H., et al. (2016) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/nrdp.2016.22 · Cited by 1,982
Self-citationFitness consequences of personality: a meta-analysis
Smith, B. R., & Blumstein, D. T. (2008) · Behavioral Ecology · doi:10.1093/beheco/arm144 · Cited by 1,450
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Role of Defunctioning Stoma in Low Rectal Cancer Surgery
Hüser, N., Michalski, C. W., Erkan, M., Schuster, T., Rosenberg, R., Kleeff, J., & Friess, H. (2008) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e318176bf65 · Cited by 616
Self-citationCurrent status and progress of pancreatic cancer in China
Lin, Q.-J. (2015) · World Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.3748/wjg.v21.i26.7988 · Cited by 285
Metadata
- Authors
- Michalski, C. W., Kleeff, J., Wente, M. N., Diener, M. K., Büchler, M. W., & Friess, H.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-02-22
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 265-273
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W1964246836
- Cited by
- 302
- References
- 24
- FWCI
- 1.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic review and meta-analysis of standard and extended lymphadenectomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.5716
- The paper
- Michalski, C. W., Kleeff, J., Wente, M. N., Diener, M. K., Büchler, M. W., & Friess, H. (2007). Systematic review and meta-analysis of standard and extended lymphadenectomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5716
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
