Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28684937›Full record

ReviewClinics in colon and rectal surgery2017

Stoma Complications.

Devi Mukkai Krishnamurty, Jeffrey Blatnik, Matthew Mutch

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinics in colon and rectal surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

78 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Ostomy continence devices: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Surgery-induced and Associated Long-term Strictures.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Devi Mukkai KrishnamurtySection of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Jeffrey BlatnikSection of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Matthew MutchSection of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When created properly, an ileostomy or colostomy can dramatically improve a patient's quality of life. Conversely, when a patient develops complications related to their stoma, the impact on physical and mental health can be profound. Unfortunately, significant morbidity is associated with stoma creation conveying high rates of both early and late-term complications. Early complications include stomal ischemia/necrosis, retraction, mucocutaneous separation, and parastomal abscess. Late complications include parastomal hernia, prolapse, retraction, and varices. This review will discuss commonly occurring nondermatological stoma complications and detail management strategies for the ostomate and the surgeon.

Indexed as

colostomyileostomyparastomal herniaparastomal varicesstoma prolapse

Identifiers

PMID28684937
PMCPMC5498161

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.