Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29513393›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2018

Oral water soluble contrast for malignant bowel obstruction.

William Syrmis, Russell Richard, Sue Jenkins-Marsh, Siew C Chia, Phillip Good

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Oral water soluble contrast for malignant bowel obstruction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. RISK FACTORS FOR REOPERATION, MORBIDITY, AND MORTALITY IN PATIENTS WITH SMALL BOWEL OBSTRUCTION SUBMITTED TO SURGICAL TREATMENT.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. GI Surgical Emergencies: Scope and Burden of Disease.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

William SyrmisSt Vincent's Private Hospital, 411 Main Street, Kangaroo Point, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Russell Richard
Sue Jenkins-Marsh
Siew C Chia
Phillip Good
St Vincent’s Private Hospital Brisbane · AUTan Tock Seng Hospital · SGTownsville Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMalignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a common problem in patients with intra-abdominal cancer. Oral water soluble contrast (OWSC) has been shown to be useful in the management of adhesive small bowel obstruction in identifying patients who will recover with conservative management alone and also in reducing the length of hospital stay. It is not clear whether the benefits of OWSC in adhesive small bowel obstruction are also seen in patients with MBO.

objectivesTo determine the reliability of OWSC media and follow-up abdominal radiographs in predicting the success of conservative treatment in resolving inoperable MBO with conservative management.To determine the efficacy and safety of OWSC media in reducing the duration of obstruction and reducing hospital stay in people with MBO. SEARCH

methodsWe identified studies from searching Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and MEDLINE in Process, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index (Web of Science) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science). We also searched registries of clinical trials and the CareSearch Grey Literature database. The date of the search was the 6 June 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or prospective controlled studies, that evaluated the diagnostic potential of OWSC in predicting which malignant bowel obstructions will resolve with conservative treatment.RCTs, or prospective controlled studies, that assessed the therapeutic potential of OWSC in managing MBO at any level compared with placebo, no intervention or usual treatment or supportive care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN

resultsWe found only one RCT meeting the selection criteria for the second objective (therapeutic potential) of this review. This study recruited nine participants. It compared the use of gastrografin versus placebo in adult patients with MBO with no indication for further intervention (surgery, endoscopy) apart from standardised conservative management.The overall risk of bias for the study was high due to issues with low numbers of participants, selective reporting of outcomes and a high attrition rate for the intervention arm.Primary outcomesThe included trial was a pilot study whose primary outcome was to test the feasibility for a large study. The authors reported specifically on the number of patients screened, the number recruited and reasons for exclusion; this was not the focus of our review.Due to the low number of participants, the authors of the study decided not to report on our primary outcome of assessing the ability of OWSC to predict the likelihood of malignant small bowel obstruction resolving with conservative treatment alone (diagnostic effect). It also did not report on our primary outcome of rate of resolution of MBO in patients receiving OWSC compared with those not receiving it (therapeutic effect).The study reported that no issues regarding safety or tolerability of either gastrografin or placebo were identified. The overall quality of the evidence for the incidence of adverse events with OWSC was very low, downgraded twice for serious limitations to study quality (high risk of selective reporting and attrition bias) and downgraded once for imprecision (sparse data).Secondary outcomesThe study planned to report on this review's secondary outcome measures of length of hospital stay and time from administration of OWSC to resolution of MBO. However the authors of the study decided not to do so due to the low numbers of patients recruited. The study did not report on our secondary outcome measure of survival times from onset of inoperable MBO until death. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence from RCTs to determine the place of OWSC in predicting which patients with inoperable MBO will respond with conservative treatment alone. There is also insufficient evidence from RCTs to determine the therapeutic effects and safety of OWSC in patients with malignant small bowel obstruction.

Indexed as

Conservative TreatmentAbdominal NeoplasmsAdministration, OralAdultContrast MediaDiatrizoate MeglumineFeasibility StudiesHumansIntestinal ObstructionLength of StayPilot ProjectsContrast MediaDiatrizoate Meglumine

Identifiers

PMID29513393
PMCPMC6494190
OpenAlexW2259005000

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.