Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15846707›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005

Quality of life after rectal resection for cancer, with or without permanent colostomy.

J Pachler, P Wille-Jørgensen

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 205 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Ostomy-related problems and their impact on quality of life of colorectal cancer ostomates: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2016
    Pooled it
  2. Systematic review reveals limitations of studies evaluating health-related quality of life after potentially curative treatment for esophageal cancer.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2013
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J PachlerDepartment of Surgical Gastroenterology K, H/S Bispebjerg Hospital., Bispebjerg Bakke 23, Copenhagen NV, Denmark, DK 2400. jp12@bbh.hosp.dk
P Wille-Jørgensen
Bispebjerg Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor almost one hundred years abdominoperineal excision has been the standard treatment of choice for rectal cancer. With advances in the techniques for rectal resection and anastomosis, anterior resection with preservation of the sphincter function has become the preferred treatment for rectal cancers, except for those cancers very close to the anal sphincter. The main reason for this has been the conviction that the quality of life for patients with a colostomy after abdominoperineal excision was poorer than for patients undergoing a sphincter-preserving technique. However, patients having sphincter-preserving operations may experience symptoms affecting their quality of life that are different from those with stoma-patients.

objectivesTo compare the quality of life in rectal cancer patients with or without permanent colostomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched PUBMED, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group's specialised register. Abstract books from major gastroenterological and colorectal congresses were searched. Reference lists of the selected articles were scrutinized. SELECTION CRITERIA: All controlled clinical trials and observational studies in which quality of life was measured in patients with rectal cancer having either abdominoperineal excision or low anterior resection, using a validated quality of life instrument, were considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer (JP) checked the titles and abstracts identified from the databases and hand search. Full text copies of all studies of possible relevance were obtained. The reviewer decided which studies met the inclusion criteria. Both reviewers independently extracted data. If information was insufficient the original author was contacted to obtain missing data. Extracted data were crosschecked and discrepancies resolved by consensus. MAIN

resultsThirty potential studies were identified. Eleven of these, all non-randomised and representing 1412 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six trials found that people undergoing abdominoperineal excision did not have poorer quality of life measures than patients undergoing anterior resection. One study found that a stoma only slightly affected the person's quality of life. Four studies found that patients receiving abdominoperineal excision had significantly poorer quality of life than after anterior resection. Due to heterogeneity, meta-analysis of the included studies was not possible. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe studies included in this review do not allow firm conclusions as to the question of whether the quality of life of people after anterior resection is superior to that of people after abdominoperineal excision. The included studies challenged the assumption that anterior resection patients fare better.Larger, better designed and executed prospective studies are needed to answer this question.

Indexed as

ColostomyQuality of LifeControlled Clinical Trials as TopicHumansRectal NeoplasmsRectum

Identifiers

PMID15846707
OpenAlexW4246157212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.