Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16235395›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005

Transverse verses midline incisions for abdominal surgery.

S R Brown, P B Goodfellow

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
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 85 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

85 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 204 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2015
    Guideline
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Open surgical procedures for incisional hernias.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008
    Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S R BrownDept Surgery, Northern General Hospital, Herries Rd, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK S5 7AU. stevebrown@doctors.org.uk
P B Goodfellow
Northern General Hospital · GBSt James's University Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe choice of surgical incision in the abdomen is determined by access for surgery. It has been suggested that utilising a transverse or oblique rather than a midline incision may influence other parameters such as recovery and complication rates. However, there is little consensus in the literature as to whether a particular incision confers any advantage.

objectivesTo determine whether a midline incision or a transverse incision (including oblique incision) confers any recovery advantage to the patient. SEARCH STRATEGY: Search terms included randomised trials containing combinations of the following: 'abdominal', 'incisions', 'horizontal', 'transverse', 'vertical', 'midline', and 'laparotomy'. SELECTION CRITERIA: All prospective randomised trials comparing midline with transverse incisions for abdominal surgery were included. Caesarian sections were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible trials and independently extracted data from the included trials. A wide range of outcome measures was considered. MAIN

resultsDue to differences in the method of assessment, the variability of data and the heterogeneity of the participant groups it was difficult to pool some of the outcome data. Despite these limitations, and potentially significant biases related to methodological quality, there was evidence to suggest that a transverse or oblique incision may be less painful and have less impact on pulmonary function than a midline incision, particularly in the early postoperative period. However, there was no difference seen in early or late postoperative complications between a transverse or oblique and a midline incision and recovery times were similar. AUTHORS'

conclusionsBoth analgesia use and pulmonary compromise may be reduced with a transverse or oblique incision but this does not seem to be significant clinically as complication rates and recovery times are the same as with midline incision. The methodological and clinical diversity and the potential for bias in the included studies also mean that the results in favour of a transverse or oblique incision, particularly with regard to analgesic use, should be treated with caution. The optimal incision for abdominal surgery still remains the preference of the surgeon.

Indexed as

HumansLaparotomyRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID16235395
PMCPMC8866010
OpenAlexW1767305537

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.