Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29398873›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of gastroenterology2018

Impact of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis.

Katie E Rollins, Hannah Javanmard-Emamghissi, Dileep N Lobo

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
14.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 170 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Anastomotic Leak Following Colorectal Surgery.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. [Anastomotic leaks in colorectal surgery].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Katie E RollinsGastrointestinal Surgery, Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, United Kingdom.
Hannah Javanmard-EmamghissiGastrointestinal Surgery, Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, United Kingdom.
Dileep N LoboGastrointestinal Surgery, Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, United Kingdom. dileep.lobo@nottingham.ac.uk.
NIHR Nottingham Digestive Diseases Biomedical Research Unit · GBQueen's Medical Centre · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P021220/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo analyse the effect of mechanical bowel preparation

methodsMeta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing adult patients receiving mechanical bowel preparation with those receiving no mechanical bowel preparation, subdivided into those receiving a single rectal enema and those who received no preparation at all prior to elective colorectal surgery.

resultsA total of 36 studies (23 randomised controlled trials and 13 observational studies) including 21568 patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery were included. When all studies were considered, mechanical bowel preparation was not associated with any significant difference in anastomotic leak rates (OR = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.74 to 1.10,

conclusionIn the most comprehensive meta-analysis of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery to date, this study has suggested that the use of mechanical bowel preparation does not affect the incidence of postoperative complications when compared with no preparation. Hence, mechanical bowel preparation should not be administered routinely prior to elective colorectal surgery.

Indexed as

AdultCatharticsColonDigestive System Surgical ProceduresElective Surgical ProceduresHumansIncidenceLength of StayPatient SatisfactionPostoperative ComplicationsPreoperative CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRectumTreatment OutcomeCatharticsAntibioticsBowel preparationMechanicalMeta-analysisMorbidityMortalityOutcome complicationsSurgery

Identifiers

PMID29398873
PMCPMC5787787
OpenAlexW2784367003

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.