SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2010
A meta-analysis comparing side to end with colonic J-pouch formation after anterior resection for rectal cancer.
Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Colonic J-pouch versus side-to-end anastomosis for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of side-to-end anastomosis versus colonic J-pouch anastomosis in sphincter-preserving resections: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.World journal of surgical oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Efficacy of side-to-end anastomosis to prevent anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2022Article
- Changes in surgical therapies for rectal cancer over the past 100 years: A review.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA meta-analysis of published literature comparing J-pouch with side to end anastomosis after anterior resection (AR) for rectal cancer.
methodsElectronic databases were searched from January 1980 to March 2009. A systematic review was performed to obtain a summative outcome.
resultsFour randomized controlled trials involving 273 patients were analysed. One hundred and thirty-eight patients were in the J-pouch and 135 in the side to end anastomosis (STEA) group. No significant difference in surgically related outcomes was established (hospital stay, operative time, estimated blood loss, overall morbidity and mortality). Resting pressures at 24 months post-operatively were lower in J-pouch group compared with STEA and approached statistical significance [random effects model: SMD = -1.23, 95% CI (-2.47, -0.01), z = -1.94, P = 0.053]. No statistical difference was found in volumetric parameters (Volume at which the patient first experiences a sensation to defaecate and maximal tolerable volume). No statistical difference except urgency at 6 months [P < 0.05] was elicited in functional outcomes (use of enemas, bowel medications, pads, incomplete defaecation and stool frequency) between J-pouch and STEA groups.
conclusionsJ-pouch or STEA are acceptable and safe options after AR for rectal cancer. Either approach may be considered according to surgeon choice. A randomized controlled trial including a larger number of patients is required to strengthen the evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.