Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28132113›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2017

A systematic analysis of controlled clinical trials using the NiTi CAR™ compression ring in colorectal anastomoses.

R Tabola, R Cirocchi, A Fingerhut, A Arezzo, J Randolph, V Grassi, G A Binda, V D'Andrea, I Abraha, G Popivanov and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 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
–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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Colorectal Anastomotic Techniques.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2022
    Review
  5. Surgical complications in colorectal cancer patients.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2020
    Review
  6. Review
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.

R TabolaDepartment of General and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Medical University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland.
R CirocchiDepartment of General and Oncologic Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy. roberto.cirocchi@unipg.it.
A FingerhutSection for Surgical Research, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
A ArezzoDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
J RandolphTift College of Education, Mercer University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
V GrassiDepartment of General and Oncologic Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy.
G A BindaColorectal Surgery Unit, Galliera Hospital, Genoa, Italy.
V D'AndreaDepartment of Surgical Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
I AbrahaDepartment of Geriatrics and Geriatric Emergency Care, Italian National Research Center on Aging (IRCCS-INRCA), Ancona, Italy.
G PopivanovDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, Military Medical Academy, Sofia, Bulgaria.
S Di SaverioGeneral (Colorectal), Emergency and Trauma Surgery Service, Maggiore Hospital Regional Emergency Surgery and Trauma Center, Bologna Local Health Services, Bologna, Italy.
A ZbarDepartment of Surgery and Transplantation, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anastomotic leak following colorectal surgery can be a devastating adverse event. The ideal stapling device should be capable of rapid creation of an anastomosis with serosal apposition without the persistence of a foreign body or a foreign body reaction which potentially contribute to early anastomotic dehiscence or late anastomotic stricture. A systematic review was performed examining available data on controlled randomized and non-randomized trials assessing the NiTi compression anastomosis ring-(NiTi CAR™) (NiTi Solutions, Netanyah Israel) in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) standards. A protocol for this meta-analysis has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016050934). The initial search yielded 45 potentially relevant articles. After screening titles and abstracts for relevance and assessment for eligibility, 39 of these articles were eventually excluded leaving 6 studies for analysis in the review. Regarding the primary outcome measure, the overall anastomotic leak rate was 2.2% (5/230) in the compression anastomosis group compared with 3% (10/335) in the conventional anastomosis group; this difference was not statistically significant (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.25-2.24; participants = 565; studies = 6; I

Indexed as

PressureAnastomosis, SurgicalAnastomotic LeakColonControlled Clinical Trials as TopicHumansRectumSurgical StaplingTreatment OutcomeAnastomotic leakBARBiofragmentable anastomotic ringColonRingCompression anastomosisNiTi CAR

Identifiers

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.