Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30806842›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2019

Stoma rods in abdominal surgery: a systematic review and metaanalyses.

H M Mohan, A Pasquali, B O'Neill, D Collins, D C Winter

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Stoma Complications.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2024
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Current Management of Intestinal Stomas and Their Complications.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2020
    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.

H M MohanDepartment of Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland. Helen.mohan@gmail.com.
A PasqualiDepartment of Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland.
B O'NeillDepartment of Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland.
D CollinsDepartment of Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland.
D C WinterDepartment of Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStoma rods are used traditionally to prevent retraction of loop stomas into the abdominal cavity. However, there is very little evidence to support or refute their use. The aim of the present systematic review and metaanalysis was to assess the current data on stoma rods in loop stomas. The primary outcomes were stoma necrosis and stoma retraction.

methodsA systematic review and metaanalyses were conducted using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalysis guidelines (PRISMA). The study protocol was registered prospectively on PROSPERO. An electronic search was performed by two reviewers independently using predefined search strategy and Medline. Bibliographies of selected studies were screened for additional references. RevMan was used to generate forest plots and calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

resultsIn total, five studies were identified that met inclusion criteria, including four randomized controlled trials. Three studies examined only ileostomies, while one included both colostomies and ileostomies, and one only examined colostomies. In total, 561 patients underwent a stoma with a rod compared to 443 without. There was a higher rate of dermatitis (rod 29.86% vs no rod 16% OR 2.65; 95% CI 1.79-3.93) and stoma necrosis (rod 7% vs no rod 1.15% OR 5.58; 95% CI 1.85-16.84) in the rod group, but there was no significant difference in stoma retraction (rod 2.28% vs no rod 3.45%; OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.32-1.54).

conclusionsStoma rods do not reduce the incidence of stoma retraction and instead lead to increased rates of dermatitis and stoma necrosis.

Indexed as

Surgical Fixation DevicesAbdomenColostomyHumansIleostomyPostoperative ComplicationsSurgical StomasColorectal surgeryComplication ratesDiverting stomaLoop stomaStoma rods

Identifiers

PMID30806842

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.