ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2016
[Surgical treatment of secondary peritonitis: A continuing problem. German version].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSecondary peritonitis remains associated with high mortality and morbidity rates. Treatment of secondary peritonitis is still challenging even in the era of modern medicine. Surgical intervention for source control remains the cornerstone of treatment besides adequate antimicrobial therapy and when necessary intensive medical care measures and resuscitation. A randomized clinical trial showed that relaparotomy on demand (ROD) after initial emergency surgery was the preferred treatment strategy, irrespective of the severity and extent of peritonitis. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The effective and safe use of ROD requires intensive monitoring of the patient in a setting where diagnostic tests and decision making about relaparotomy are guaranteed round the clock. The lack of knowledge on timely and adequate patient selection, together with the lack of use of easy but reliable monitoring tools seem to hamper full implementation of ROD. The accuracy of the relaparotomy decision tool is reasonable for prediction of the formation of peritonitis and necessary selection of patients for computed tomography (CT). The value of CT in the early postoperative phase is unclear. Future research and innovative technologies should focus on the additive value of CT after surgical treatment for secondary peritonitis and on the further optimization of bedside prediction tools to enhance adequate patient selection for interventions in a multidisciplinary setting.
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.