Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26960997›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2016

International consensus statement regarding the use of animal models for research on anastomoses in the lower gastrointestinal tract.

Joanna W A M Bosmans, Martine Moossdorff, Mahdi Al-Taher, Lotte van Beek, Joep P M Derikx, Nicole D Bouvy

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  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. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Anastomotic Leak: Toward an Understanding of Its Root Causes.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021
    Review
  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

6 authors.

Joanna W A M BosmansDepartment of General Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 5800, 6202, AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. ac.bosmans@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Martine MoossdorffDepartment of General Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 5800, 6202, AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Mahdi Al-TaherDepartment of General Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 5800, 6202, AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Lotte van BeekDepartment of General Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 5800, 6202, AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Joep P M DerikxNUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Nicole D BouvyDepartment of General Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 5800, 6202, AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis project aimed to reach consensus on the most appropriate animal models and outcome measures in research on anastomoses in the lower gastrointestinal tract (GIT). The physiology of anastomotic healing remains an important research topic in gastrointestinal surgery. Recent results from experimental studies are limited with regard to comparability and clinical translation.

methodsPubMed and EMBASE were searched for experimental studies investigating anastomotic healing in the lower GIT published between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2014 to assess currently used models. All corresponding authors were invited for a Delphi-based analysis that consisted of two online survey rounds followed by a final online recommendation survey to reach consensus on the discussed topics.

resultsTwo hundred seventy-seven original articles were retrieved and 167 articles were included in the systematic review. Mice, rats, rabbits, pigs, and dogs are currently being used as animal models, with a large variety in surgical techniques and outcome measures. Forty-four corresponding authors participated in the Delphi analysis. In the first two rounds, 39/44 and 35/39 participants completed the survey. In the final meeting, 35 experts reached consensus on 76/122 items in six categories. Mouse, rat, and pig are considered appropriate animal models; rabbit and dog should be abandoned in research regarding bowel anastomoses. ARRIVE guidelines should be followed more strictly.

conclusionsConsensus was reached on several recommendations for the use of animal models and outcome measurements in research on anastomoses of the lower GIT. Future research should take these suggestions into account to facilitate comparison and clinical translation of results.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchConsensusInternationalityAnastomosis, SurgicalAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalLower Gastrointestinal TractPostoperative ComplicationsSurveys and QuestionnairesAnastomotic healingAnimal modelsColorectal anastomosisConsensusExperimental studies

Identifiers

PMID26960997
PMCPMC4834109

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.