Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28521286›Full record

SynthesisOncotarget2017

Duct-to-mucosa versus invagination pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis.

Shuisheng Zhang, Zhongmin Lan, Jianwei Zhang, Yingtai Chen, Quan Xu, Qinglong Jiang, Yajie Zhao, Chengfeng Wang, Xiaoning Bi, Xiaozhun Huang

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

10 authors.

Shuisheng ZhangDepartment of Abdominal Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Zhongmin LanDepartment of Abdominal Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Jianwei ZhangDepartment of Abdominal Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Yingtai ChenDepartment of Abdominal Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Quan XuDepartment of Abdominal Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Qinglong JiangDepartment of Abdominal Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Yajie ZhaoDepartment of Abdominal Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Chengfeng WangDepartment of Abdominal Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Xiaoning BiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Xiaozhun HuangDepartment of abdominal surgery, Cancer hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shenzhen center, Shenzhen cancer hospital, Shenzhen, 518116, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe aimed to compare the two most commonly used pancreatico-jejunostomy reconstruction techniques-duct-to-mucosa and invagination.

methodsDatabases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and several clinical trial registration centers were searched. Randomized controlled trials that compared duct-to-mucosa and invagination pancreaticojejunostomy techniques after pancreaticoduodenectomy were included and analyzed.

resultsIn total, seven RCTs were included, involving 850 patients. The difference in postoperative pancreatic fistula rate between the duct-to-mucosa and invagination pancreaticojejunostomy was not significant (RR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.76-1.39, P = 0.86). There was no significant difference in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula between the two groups (RR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.15-3.96, P = 0.77). The overall morbidity, overall mortality, delayed gastric emptying, intra-abdominal collection, reoperation rate, and length of hospital stay between the two groups were not significantly different. Sensitivity analysis showed that the meta-analysis was stable. Further, no significant publication bias was seen.

conclusionsDuct-to-mucosa and invagination pancreaticojejunostomy techniques after pancreaticoduodenectomy were comparable in terms of postoperative pancreatic fistula incidence and other parameters.

Indexed as

PancreaticojejunostomyHumansLength of StayOdds RatioPancreatic DiseasesPancreaticoduodenectomyPostoperative ComplicationsPublication BiasSurvival RateTreatment Outcomeduct-to-mucosainvaginationpancreaticoduodenectomy (PD)pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ)postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF)

Identifiers

PMID28521286
PMCPMC5542280

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.