Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 360

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and High-Quality Nonrandomized Studies

Viñuela, Eduardo F., Gonen, Mithat, Brennan, Murray F., Coit, Daniel G., Strong, Vivian E.·2012·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis of high-quality published trials, randomized and observational, comparing laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) and open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for gastric cancer. BACKGROUND: Controversy persists about the clinical utility of minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of gastric cancer. Prospective data is limited to a few small randomized trails. METHODS: : Studies published from January 1992 to March 2010 that compare LDG and ODG were identified. No restrictions in pathologic stage were applied. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Selection of high-quality, nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCTs) was based on a validated tool (Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies). Mortality, complications, harvested lymph nodes, operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay were compared using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included in the analyses, 6 RCTs and 19 NRCTs, compromising 3055 patients (1658 LDG, 1397 ODG). LDG was associated with longer operative times (WMD 48.3 minutes; P < 0.001) and lower overall complications (OR 0.59; P < 0.001), medical complications (OR 0.49; P = 0.002), minor surgical complications (OR 0.62; P = 0.001), estimated blood loss (WMD -118.9 mL; P < 0.001), and hospital stay (WMD -3.6 days; P < 0.001). Mortality and major complications were similar. Patients in the ODG group had a significantly higher number of lymph nodes harvested (WMD 3.9 nodes; P < 0.001), although the estimated proportion of patients with less than 15 retrieved nodes was similar (OR 1.26, P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: LDG can be performed safely with a shorter hospital stay and fewer complications than open surgery. The long-term significance of a difference of less than 5 nodes in the number of harvested lymph nodes remains unclear. Lymph node staging appears to be unaffected. These results need to be validated in Western patients with advanced gastric cancer.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/sla.0b013e31824682f4

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 49 references

Cited by

See all 360

Metadata

Authors
Viñuela, E. F., Gonen, M., Brennan, M. F., Coit, D. G., & Strong, V. E.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2012-03
Volume
255
Issue
3
Pages
446-456
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2019140206
Cited by
360
References
49
FWCI
24.19
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: Laparoscopic Versus Open Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and High-Quality Nonrandomized Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e31824682f4
The paper
Viñuela, E. F., Gonen, M., Brennan, M. F., Coit, D. G., & Strong, V. E. (2012). Laparoscopic Versus Open Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and High-Quality Nonrandomized Studies. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e31824682f4

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.