Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27620910›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2017

Prophylactic transanal decompression tube versus non-prophylactic transanal decompression tube for anastomotic leakage prevention in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

Yun Yang, Ye Shu, Fangyu Su, Lin Xia, Baofeng Duan, Xiaoting Wu

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Yun YangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China School of Medicine, Sichuan University/West China Hospital, Chengdu Shangjin Nanfu, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Ye ShuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Lane, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Fangyu SuDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Lin XiaDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Lane, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Baofeng DuanDepartment of Oncology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Xiaoting WuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Lane, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China. drwxt1957@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1284-7749
Sichuan University · CNUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTransanal decompression tube (TDT), an alternative intervention believed to have potential equivalent efficacy in reducing anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery and lower complication rates compared to protective stoma, was sporadically applied in some medical centers during recent decade. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of the TDT in preventing the anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

methodsThe studies comparing TDT and non-TDT in rectal cancer were researched up to March 22, 2016 without language preference, in databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and National Clinical Trials Registry. The rates of anastomotic leakage, bleeding, and re-operation were separately calculated and compared between TDT and non-TDT groups using RevMan 5.3. Funnel plots, and Egger's tests were used to evaluate the publication biases of the studies.

resultsTwo prospective randomized controlled trial studies and five observational cohort studies with 833 participants in TDT group and 939 participants in non-TDT group were finally included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that the TDT group had lower anastomotic leakage rate than non-TDT group with significant RR (RR 0.44; 95 % CI 0.29-0.66; P < 0.0001) and heterogeneity (I

conclusionsTDT might be an efficient and economic intervention in preventing anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery.

Indexed as

Anastomotic LeakDigestive System Surgical ProceduresDrainageFemaleHumansMaleObservational Studies as TopicPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRectal NeoplasmsReoperationTreatment OutcomeAnastomotic leakageLow anterior resectionRectal cancerTransanal decompression tube

Identifiers

PMID27620910
OpenAlexW2518715766

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.