Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27167879›Full record

ArticleSurgery today2017

Regeneration of peritoneal mesothelial cells after placement of hyaluronate carboxymethyl-cellulose (Seprafilm

Hideki Osawa, Junichi Nishimura, Masayuki Hiraki, Hidekazu Takahashi, Naotsugu Haraguchi, Taishi Hata, Masakazu Ikenaga, Kohei Murata, Hirofumi Yamamoto, Tsunekazu Mizushima and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgery today, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hideki OsawaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, E2-2-2 Yamada-oka, Suita, 565-0871, Osaka, Japan.
Junichi NishimuraDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, E2-2-2 Yamada-oka, Suita, 565-0871, Osaka, Japan. jnishimura@gesurg.med.osaka-u.ac.jp.
Masayuki HirakiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, E2-2-2 Yamada-oka, Suita, 565-0871, Osaka, Japan.
Hidekazu TakahashiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, E2-2-2 Yamada-oka, Suita, 565-0871, Osaka, Japan.
Naotsugu HaraguchiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, E2-2-2 Yamada-oka, Suita, 565-0871, Osaka, Japan.
Taishi HataDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, E2-2-2 Yamada-oka, Suita, 565-0871, Osaka, Japan.
Masakazu IkenagaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, E2-2-2 Yamada-oka, Suita, 565-0871, Osaka, Japan.
Kohei MurataDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, E2-2-2 Yamada-oka, Suita, 565-0871, Osaka, Japan.
Hirofumi YamamotoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, E2-2-2 Yamada-oka, Suita, 565-0871, Osaka, Japan.
Tsunekazu MizushimaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, E2-2-2 Yamada-oka, Suita, 565-0871, Osaka, Japan.
Yuichiro DokiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, E2-2-2 Yamada-oka, Suita, 565-0871, Osaka, Japan.
Masaki MoriDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, E2-2-2 Yamada-oka, Suita, 565-0871, Osaka, Japan.
Osaka University · JPSuita Municipal Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo examine the regeneration of mesothelium under a bioresorbable membrane.

methodsA 1 cm

resultsMacroscopically, the degree of postoperative adhesion in the treated site was significantly less than that in the untreated site. The membrane was left in place for 7 postoperative days (PODs). By POD 5, the regenerated peritoneum mesothelial cells covered part of the area and by POD 7, they had regenerated over almost all of that area in the abdominal wall.

conclusionThe anti-adhesion membrane worked as a physical barrier to prevent postoperative adhesion until the mesothelial cells had regenerated completely. To our knowledge, this is the first study conducted to assess the regeneration of peritoneum mesothelial cells under a bioresorbable membrane using immunohistochemistry.

Indexed as

AnimalsFemaleHyaluronic AcidMice, Inbred StrainsPeritoneumPostoperative ComplicationsRegenerationTissue AdhesionsHyaluronic AcidSeprafilmBioresorbable membraneMesothelium cellPeritoneumPostoperative adhesionSeprafilm®

Identifiers

PMID27167879
OpenAlexW2384842982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.