ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2018
Comparison of simplified and traditional pericardial devascularisation combined with splenectomy for the treatment of portal hypertension.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Portal hypertension in pregnancy - Concealed perils.Obstetric medicine · 2020Article
- Postoperative survival analysis and prognostic nomogram model for patients with portal hypertension.World journal of gastroenterology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the clinical outcomes of patients with portal hypertension (PH) who underwent treatment with splenectomy plus simplified pericardial devascularisation (SSPD) or splenectomy plus traditional pericardial devascularisation (STPD).
methodsWe conducted a single-centre retrospective study of 1045 PH patients treated with either SSPD (S Group, 357 patients) or STPD (T Group, 688 patients) between January 2002 and February 2017. In all, 37 clinical indicators were compared to evaluate the efficacy of SSPD.
resultsPerioperative indicators in the S Group were significantly better than those in the T Group (
conclusionCompared to STPD, SSPD is a simple and easy procedure resulting in less tissue damage. Patients recovered smoothly and steadily with fewer complications. Short-term liver and kidney function damage was less severe, and long-term liver function recovery was better. Therefore, SSPD is worthy of clinical promotion and application for the treatment of PH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.