SynthesisScientific reports2015
An Updated Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perforated peptic ulcers in children: a systematic review.BMC pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- Laparoscopic suture repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease: a meta-review and trial sequential analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Has Better Outcomes Than Open Repair.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Pooled it
- Laparoscopic surgery in acute perforated gastroduodenal ulcers: an underutilized technique despite favorable short-term outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Advances and results in omental patch repair of gastrointestinal perforations: A narrative review.Surgery in practice and science · 2024Review
- Comparison of Mortality and Postoperative Complications Between Open and Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: An Umbrella Review.Minimally invasive surgery · 2024Review
- Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment: an Italian nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study investigating laparoscopic vs open approach.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcers: analysis of outcomes and identification of predictive factors of conversion.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Outcome of Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcers in a Resource-Limited Setting.Cureus · 2022Article
- Omental patch repair of large perforated peptic ulcers ≥25 mm is associated with higher leak rate.Journal of clinical and translational research · 2021Article
- Comparison of laparoscopic surgery versus traditional laparotomy for the treatment of emergency patients.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Article
- Surgical repair of perforated peptic ulcers: laparoscopic versus open approach.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Article
- Laparoscopic versus Open Omental Patch Repair for Early Presentation of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Matched Retrospective Cohort Study.Surgery research and practice · 2016Article
- Our experience with surgery in situs inversus: Open peptic perforation repair and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 1 patient and 3 patients respectively.International journal of surgery case reports · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laparoscopic repair (LR) for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) has been introduced since 1990. Although many studies comparing LR with open repair (OR) have been published, controversy remains regarding the clinical utility of laparoscopic techniques for the treatment of PPU. Thus, it is necessary for us to broaden our knowledge on this subject with the newly published articles. Twenty-four nonrandomized controlled studies (NRS) and five randomized controlled trails (RCTs) were included in our meta-analyses, which comprised 5,268 patients (1,890 in the LR group and 3,378 in the OR group). In the analysis of high quality NRS and RCTs, compared with OR, high quality evidence suggested that LR was associated with a lower incidence of overall postoperative complications; moderate evidence showed that the two procedures had the similar reoperation rate; based on the low quality evidence, LR had reduced hospital mortality and similar operative time; Moreover, LR was observed having the advantages of earlier resumption of oral intake, shorter hospital stay and less analgesic use, which were supported by very low evidence. All the evidences suggest that LR is better than OR for PPU, but more high-quality RCTs are still needed for further validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.