Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26297675›Full record

ArticleBMC developmental biology2015

The growth pattern of the human intestine and its mesentery.

Jelly H M Soffers, Jill P J M Hikspoors, Hayelom K Mekonen, S Eleonore Koehler, Wouter H Lamers

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC developmental biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.1field-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.

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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jelly H M SoffersDepartment of Anatomy & Embryology, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Jelly.soffers@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Jill P J M HikspoorsDepartment of Anatomy & Embryology, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Jill.hikspoors@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Hayelom K MekonenDepartment of Anatomy & Embryology, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Hayelom.mekonen@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
S Eleonore KoehlerDepartment of Anatomy & Embryology, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Leo.koehler@maastrichtuniveristy.nl.
Wouter H LamersDepartment of Anatomy & Embryology, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. WH.Lamers@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Maastricht University · NLAcademic Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt remains unclear to what extent midgut rotation determines human intestinal topography and pathology. We reinvestigated the midgut during its looping and herniation phases of development, using novel 3D visualization techniques.

resultsWe distinguished 3 generations of midgut loops. The topography of primary and secondary loops was constant, but that of tertiary loops not. The orientation of the primary loop changed from sagittal to transverse due to the descent of ventral structures in a body with a still helical body axis. The 1st secondary loop (duodenum, proximal jejunum) developed intraabdominally towards a left-sided position. The 2nd secondary loop (distal jejunum) assumed a left-sided position inside the hernia before returning, while the 3rd and 4th secondary loops retained near-midline positions. Intestinal return into the abdomen resembled a backward sliding movement. Only after return, the 4th secondary loop (distal ileum, cecum) rapidly "slid" into the right lower abdomen. The seemingly random position of the tertiary small-intestinal loops may have a biomechanical origin.

conclusionsThe interpretation of "intestinal rotation" as a mechanistic rather than a descriptive concept underlies much of the confusion accompanying the physiological herniation. We argue, instead, that the concept of "en-bloc rotation" of the developing midgut is a fallacy of schematic drawings. Primary, secondary and tertiary loops arise in a hierarchical fashion. The predictable position and growth of secondary loops is pre-patterned and determines adult intestinal topography. We hypothesize based on published accounts that malrotations result from stunted development of secondary loops.

Indexed as

OrganogenesisEmbryo, MammalianFetusHernia, AbdominalHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalIntestinesMesentery

Identifiers

PMID26297675
PMCPMC4546136
OpenAlexW1927630557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.