Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20635190›Full record

SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2010

Does mesh offer an advantage over tissue in the open repair of umbilical hernias? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

N Aslani, C J Brown

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Early outcomes of umbilical hernia repair with mesh suture.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 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.

N AslaniUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. naslani@interchange.ubc.ca
C J Brown

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the best surgical approach for the open repair of primary umbilical hernias.

methodsStudies were identified through searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database, as well as hand-searching references. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing mesh to suture repair for primary umbilical hernias published between January 1965 and October 2009 were included. Data regarding the recurrence rate, complications, number of subjects, length of follow-up, size of hernia, and type of mesh were extracted. Log odds ratios were calculated and weighed by the Mantel-Haenszel method to obtain a pooled estimate with 95% confidence interval (CI). A fixed effects model was used.

resultsThree RCTs and ten observational studies were identified. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for RCTs was 0.09 in favor of mesh (95% CI 0.02-0.39). The pooled OR for observational studies was 0.40 in favor of mesh (95% CI 0.21-0.75). There was no difference in complication rates between mesh and tissue repair in RCTs or observational studies.

conclusionsThe use of mesh in umbilical hernia repair results in decreased recurrence and similar wound complications rates compared to tissue repair for primary umbilical hernias.

Indexed as

Surgical MeshHernia, UmbilicalHumansPlastic Surgery ProceduresProsthesis DesignTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID20635190

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.