Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22071832›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011

Methods of decreasing infection to improve outcomes after liver resections.

Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Prashant Naik, Brian R Davidson

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Risk factors associated with postoperative complications and prolonged postoperative length of stay after laparoscopic liver resection.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kurinchi Selvan GurusamyDepartment of Surgery, Royal Free Campus, UCL Medical School, London, UK. kurinchi2k@hotmail.com.
Prashant Naik
Brian R Davidson
The Royal Free Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInfections cause both morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing liver resection. Various methods have been advocated to decrease the infectious complications after liver resection. We do not know if they are of any benefit to the patient or the health-care funder.

objectivesTo determine the benefits and harms of different interventions in decreasing the infectious complications and improving the outcomes after liver resection. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until August 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials that were performed to compare interventions aimed at decreasing the infectious complications after liver resection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently identified the trials and extracted the data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), rate ratio, or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on available patient data analysis. MAIN

resultsWe included seven trials including 521 patients for this review. The sample size in the trials varied from 12 to 180 patients. All the trials were of high risks of systematic errors and of random errors. Four trials included patients who underwent liver resection only. In the remaining three trials, patients underwent combined liver resection with extrahepatic biliary resection resulting in a biliary enteric anastomosis. Four trials included only major liver resection. The remaining three trials included a mixture of major and minor liver resections. It appears that the proportion of cirrhotic patients in the trials was very low. The comparisons performed included whether antibiotics are necessary routinely during the peri-operative period of liver resection, the duration of antibiotics, the use of prebiotics and probiotics in the perioperative period, use of recombinant bactericidal-permeability increasing protein 21 (rBPI21), and the use of topical povidone iodine gel at the time of wound closure. Only one or two trials were included under each comparison. There was no significant differences in mortality or severe morbidity in any of the comparisons. Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is currently no evidence to support or refute the use of any treatment to reduce infectious complications after liver resections. Further well designed trials with low risk of systematic error and low risk of random errors are necessary.

Indexed as

PrebioticsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBile Ducts, ExtrahepaticHepatectomyHumansPostoperative ComplicationsProbioticsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnti-Bacterial AgentsPrebiotics

Identifiers

PMID22071832
PMCPMC13477820
OpenAlexW1597520710

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.