Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24436670›Full record

ReviewClinics in colon and rectal surgery2013

Use of intra-abdominal drains.

Frances J Puleo, Nitin Mishra, Jason F Hall

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinics in colon and rectal surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Tertiary peritonitis: considerations for complex team-based care.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Fast-Tracking Colostomy Closures.The Indian journal of surgery · 2015
    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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Frances J PuleoDepartment of Surgery, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Edison, New Jersey.
Nitin MishraDepartment of Surgery, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Edison, New Jersey.
Jason F HallDepartment of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Lahey Clinic, Burlington, Massachusetts.
Johnson University · USLahey Hospital and Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of drains in colorectal surgery has been a subject of debate for several decades. Prophylactic drainage of the peritoneal cavity has become less popular in recent years. This change is due to several studies demonstrating that intraperitoneal drains do not adequately drain the peritoneal cavity and do not prevent or contain anastomotic leaks. Percutaneous drain placement has become the standard of care for patients with intra-abdominal abscesses. Selected anastomotic leaks in the stable patient can also be managed with percutaneous drains. In this article, the authors review in detail the use of drains and the literature to support their use in our everyday practice.

Indexed as

anastomosisanastomotic leakcolon and rectal surgerydrainagedrains

Identifiers

PMID24436670
PMCPMC3747282
OpenAlexW2091946424

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.