Skip to main content
. 2010 Dec 1;10(27):1–118.

Table 4: Consistency of Results for Outcomes of Gynecologic Oncology: Qualitative Assessment.

Technology Outcomes (No. Studies)*,§
Morbidity Factors Peri-Operative Factors Lymph
Length of Hospitalization Complications Operation Time Blood Loss Conversions Lymph Node Recovery
Endometrial cancer
Robotic vs. Laparoscopy + (7) = (6) + or = (7) + (7) + (3) = (7)
Cardenas- [2010] = -¥ - + +¥ =
Jung [2009] + + = + n/a +
Seamon [2009] + = + + + =
Bell [2008] = + = = ? =
Boggess [2008] + = + + = +
Gehrig [2008] + = + + ? +
Veljovich [2008] = ? = = ? =
Robotic vs. Abdominal + (5) + (5) - (5) + (5) n/a = (5)
Jung [2009] + + = + n/a -
Bell [2008] + + - + n/a =
Boggess [2008] + + - + n/a +
DeNardis [2008] + = - + n/a =
Veljovich [2008] + = - + n/a =
Cervical cancer
Robotic vs. Laparoscopy + or = (4) = (4) = (4) + or = (4) = (1) = (4)
Estape [2009] = = = = ? +
Magrina [2008] +¥ = + +¥ ? =
Nezhat [2008] = = = = n/a =
Sert [2007] + +¥ = + ? =
Robotic vs. Abdominal + (6) = (6) - (6) + (6) n/a = (6)
Geisler [2009] + ? = + n/a =
Estape [2009] + = - + n/a +
Maggioni [2009] + = - + n/a -
Boggess [2008] + = + + n/a +
Ko [2008] + = - + n/a =
Magrina [2008] + = - + n/a =
*

+/- evidence favouring both technologies;

?

evidence not provided;

=

evidence that showed no difference between technologies;

+

evidence favouring the technology;

-

evidence not supportive of the technology compared to the referent technology, e.g. laparoscopy or abdominal as the referent group.

§

Results refer to those that were reported as a result of a statistical test of difference.

±

Systematic review.

¥

For study completeness, outcome information was also included without a statistical test for difference, especially if the magnitude of the difference was substantial.

Blood transfusions.

Note: Hoekstra et al. (2009) was excluded; Magrina et al. (2008) is based on pairwise comparisons; Jung et al. (2010) and Nezhat et al. (2008), there were zero conversions in both surgical groups.