Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26727399›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016

Surgery for the resolution of symptoms in malignant bowel obstruction in advanced gynaecological and gastrointestinal cancer.

Sarah E Cousins, Emma Tempest, David J Feuer

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03260647 (Risk Stratified Multidisciplinary Ambulatory Management of Malignant Bowel Obstruction), which is not on this map. Cited by 52 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
14.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT03260647 completednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Risk Stratified Multidisciplinary Ambulatory Management of Malignant Bowel Obstruction (MAMBO) Program for Women With Advanced Gynecological Cancers

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity Health Network, TorontoRan2017 to 2024Enrolled96ConditionsGynecologic CancerArmsManagement algorithm for Malignant Bowel Obstruction
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 193 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah E CousinsMacmillan Palliative Care Team/Cancer Services, Barts Health NHS Trust, 1st Floor East Wing, West Smithfield, London, UK, EC1A 7BE.
Emma Tempest
David J Feuer
Barts Health NHS Trust · GBWhipps Cross University Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis is an update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2000. Intestinal obstruction commonly occurs in progressive advanced gynaecological and gastrointestinal cancers. Management of these patients is difficult due to the patients' deteriorating mobility and function (performance status), the lack of further chemotherapeutic options, and the high mortality and morbidity associated with palliative surgery. There are marked variations in clinical practice concerning surgery in these patients between different countries, gynaecological oncology units and general hospitals, as well as referral patterns from oncologists under whom these patients are often admitted.

objectivesTo assess the efficacy of surgery for intestinal obstruction due to advanced gynaecological and gastrointestinal cancer. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the following databases for the original review in 2000 and again for this update in June 2015: CENTRAL (2015, Issue 6); MEDLINE (OVID June week 1 2015); and EMBASE (OVID week 24, 2015).We also searched relevant journals, bibliographic databases, conference proceedings, reference lists, grey literature and the world wide web for the original review in 2000; we also used personal contact. This searching of other resources yielded very few additional studies. The Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group no longer routinely handsearch journals. For these reasons, we did not repeat the searching of other resources for the June 2015 update. SELECTION CRITERIA: As the review concentrates on the 'best evidence' available for the role of surgery in malignant bowel obstruction in known advanced gynaecological and gastrointestinal cancer we kept the inclusion criteria broad (including both prospective and retrospective studies) so as to include all studies relevant to the question. We sought published trials reporting on the effects of surgery for resolving symptoms in malignant bowel obstruction for adult patients with known advanced gynaecological and gastrointestinal cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used data extraction forms to collect data from the studies included in the review. Two review authors extracted the data independently to reduce error. Owing to concerns about the risk of bias we decided not to conduct a meta-analysis of data and we have presented a narrative description of the study results. We planned to resolve disagreements by discussion with the third review author. MAIN

resultsIn total we have identified 43 studies examining 4265 participants. The original review included 938 patients from 25 studies. The updated search identified an additional 18 studies with a combined total of 3327 participants between 1997 and June 2015. The results of these studies did not change the conclusions of the original review.No firm conclusions can be drawn from the many retrospective case series so the role of surgery in malignant bowel obstruction remains controversial. Clinical resolution varies from 26.7% to over 68%, though it is often unclear how this is defined. Despite being an inadequate proxy for symptom resolution or quality of life, the ability to feed orally was a popular outcome measure, with success rates ranging from 30% to 100%. Rates of re-obstruction varied, ranging from 0% to 63%, though time to re-obstruction was often not included. Postoperative morbidity and mortality also varied widely, although again the definition of both of these surgical outcomes differed between many of the papers. There were no data available for quality of life. The reporting of adverse effects was variable and this has been described where available. Where discussed, surgical procedures varied considerably and outcomes were not reported by specific intervention. Using the 'Risk of bias' assessment tool, most included studies were at high risk of bias for most domains. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe role of surgery in malignant bowel obstruction needs careful evaluation, using validated outcome measures of symptom control and quality of life scores. Further information could include re-obstruction rates together with the morbidity associated with the various surgical procedures.Currently, bowel obstruction is managed empirically and there are marked variations in clinical practice by different units. In order to compare outcomes in malignant bowel obstruction, there needs to be a greater degree of standardisation of management.Since the last version of this review none of the new included studies have provided additional information to change the conclusions.

Indexed as

FemaleGastrointestinal NeoplasmsGenital Neoplasms, FemaleHumansIntestinal ObstructionMaleProspective StudiesRecurrenceRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID26727399
PMCPMC7101053
OpenAlexW1849723296

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.