Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30911641›Full record

ArticlePleura and peritoneum2017

Occupational safety of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

Wouter Willaert, Paul Sessink, Wim Ceelen

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pleura and peritoneum, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.5field-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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
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 2 countries.

Wouter WillaertDepartment of GI Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, route 1275, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Paul SessinkExposure Control Sweden AB, Bohus-Björkö, Sweden.
Wim CeelenDepartment of GI Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, route 1275, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Ghent University Hospital · BECounty Administrative Board · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has emerged as a novel method to treat extensive, small volume peritoneal metastases. The clinical use of chemotherapy containing aerosols represents a potential occupational health hazard. We report the results of toxicological analysis during the first two clinical PIPAC procedures performed at Ghent University Hospital.

methodsAfter extensive preparation and

resultsPlatinum was not detected on the four floor locations after both procedures (detection limit 0.02 ng/cm

conclusionsWith adequate preparation and precautions, a clinical PIPAC program can be established without measurable chemotherapy exposure to the operating room environment or healthcare workers.

Indexed as

carcinomatosisoccupationalPIPAC

Identifiers

PMID30911641
PMCPMC6328076
OpenAlexW2745873080

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.