Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22108902›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2012

Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery: updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

F Cao, J Li, F Li

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 135 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. Guideline
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. ERAS: An Audit of Existing Practices.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

F CaoDepartment of General Surgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, 100053, Beijing, China.
J Li
F Li
Capital Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for elective colorectal surgery has been practiced as a clinical routine for many decades. However, earlier randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses suggest that MBP should be abandoned before colorectal surgery because of the futility in reducing postoperative complications and motility. The new published results from three RCTs comparing MBP with no MBP in colorectal surgery in 2010 make the updating of systemic review and meta-analysis necessary. The aim of this study was to estimate efficacy of MBP in prevention of postoperative complications for elective colorectal surgery.

methodA literature search was performed mainly in electronic database including Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials comparing MBP with no MBP before colorectal surgery. Septic complications, reoperation, and death were recorded as primary and secondary outcomes. The meta-analysis was conducted according to the QUOROM statement.

resultsFourteen RCTs were included in our analysis with a total number of 5,373 patients: 2,682 with MBP and 2,691 without. Comparing with no MBP for elective colorectal surgery, our study showed that MBP had not reduce any postoperative complications when concerning anastomotic leak [odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08 (0.82-1.43); P = 0.56]; overall SSI [OR 95% CI, 1.26 (0.94-1.68); P = 0.12]; extra-abdominal septic complications [OR 95% CI, 0.98 (0.81-1.18); P = 0.81]; wound infections [OR 95% CI, 1.21 (1.00-1.46); P = 0.05]; reoperation or second intervention rate [OR 95% CI, 1.11 (0.86-1.45); P = 0.42]; and death [OR 95% CI, 0.97(0.63-1.48); P = 0.88].

conclusionNo evidence was noted supporting the use of MBP in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. MBP should be omitted in routine clinical practice.

Indexed as

CatharticsClinical Trials as TopicColorectal SurgeryElective Surgical ProceduresHumansOdds RatioTreatment OutcomeCathartics

Identifiers

PMID22108902
OpenAlexW2038818660

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.