Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20464746›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010

Covering ileo- or colostomy in anterior resection for rectal carcinoma.

Alessandro Montedori, Roberto Cirocchi, Eriberto Farinella, Francesco Sciannameo, Iosief Abraha

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04372992 (Multicenter Randomized Controlled Phase III Trial Comparing Ileostomy Closure Before or After Adjuvant Therapy in Patients Operated for Rectal Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 95 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT04372992 naterminatednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Multicenter Randomized Controlled Phase III Trial Comparing Ileostomy Closure Before or After Adjuvant Therapy in Patients Operated for Rectal Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorOspedale Umberto I di TorinoRan2020 to 2022Enrolled14ConditionsIleostomy, Rectal CancerArmsTiming of stoma closure
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

95 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 244 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. Prophylactic anastomotic drainage for colorectal surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2004
    Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Early versus conventional stoma closure following bowel surgery: A randomized controlled trial.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association
    Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. A new way to remedy anastomotic leakage after TaTME: A case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

35 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alessandro MontedoriEpidemiology Department, Regional Health Authority of Umbria, Via Mario Angeloni 61, Perugia, Umbria, Italy, 06124.
Roberto Cirocchi
Eriberto Farinella
Francesco Sciannameo
Iosief Abraha
Azienda Ospedaliera San Camillo-Forlanini · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnastomotic leakage is one of the most important complications that occur after surgical low anterior resection for rectal cancer. There are indications that anastomotic leak is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, frequent re-operation or radiological drainage, and prolonged hospital stay. Defunctioning stoma can be useful for patients undergoing a rectal surgery.

objectivesTo determine the efficacy of protective defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were conducted November 2009. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1966) and EMBASE (from 1980). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing the use of stoma versus "no stoma" in patients that received low anterior resection for rectal cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Six randomised controlled trials were identified and included in this review. Five trials were fully published in peer-reviewed journals. An attempt was made to obtain further information from the authors of the trial that was available only in an abstract form. The studies analysed the following outcomes: clinical anastomotic leakage, urgent reoperation, mortality and length of postoperative hospital stay. Review authors extracted the data independently, the risk ratios (RR) were estimated for the dichotomous outcomes and standardised mean difference were estimated for the continuous outcome MAIN

resultsAll the trials reported results for clinical anastomotic leakage, urgent reoperation and mortality. Only two trials reported the results for length of postoperative hospital stay.With respect to controls, use of covering stoma was significantly associated with less anastomotic leakage (RR 0.33; 95%CI [0.21, 0.53]) and less urgent reoperation (RR 0.23; 95%CI [0.12, 0.42] ). There was no significant difference in terms of mortality (RR 0.58; 95%CI [0.14, 2.33]). There was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity in any of the comparisons. AUTHORS'

conclusionsCovering stoma seems to be useful to prevent anastomotic leakage and urgent re-operations in patients receiving low anterior resection for rectal cancer. However, covering stoma does not seems to offer advantage in term of 30 days or long term mortality.

Indexed as

ColostomyHumansIleumRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRectal NeoplasmsSurgical Wound Dehiscence

Identifiers

PMID20464746
PMCPMC12721704
OpenAlexW2126168334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.