Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31011846›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2019

Adult intussusception: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

K D Hong, J Kim, W Ji, S D Wexner

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 105 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
105citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
16.8field-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

105 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 154 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. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

45 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

K D HongDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Gyeonggi-Do, Republic of Korea.
J KimDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Gyeonggi-Do, Republic of Korea.
W JiDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Gyeonggi-Do, Republic of Korea.
S D WexnerDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd, Weston, FL, 33331, USA. Wexners@ccf.org.
Korea University · KRCleveland Clinic Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPerhaps partly because intussusception in adults is rare, optimal treatment remains controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the appropriate surgical procedure for adult intussusception.

methodsA systematic search was undertaken using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from 1/1980 to 12/2016. Adults (> 15 years) with intussusception treated by surgical or conservative measures were included.

resultsOne thousand two hundred twenty-nine patients were identified from 40 retrospective case series. Pooled rates of malignant and benign tumors and idiopathic etiologies were 32.9% (95% CI 28.6-37.4), 37.4% (95% CI 32.7-42.3), and 15.1% (95% CI 11.7-19.3), respectively. Pooled rates of enteric, ileocolic, and colonic location types were 49.5% (95% CI 41.8-57.2), 29.1% (95% CI 23.0-36.1), and 19.9% (95% CI 16.3-24.1), respectively. Pooled rates of malignant tumors in enteric, ileocolic, and colonic intussusception were 22.5% (95% CI 18.3-27.3), 36.9% (95% CI 27.3-47.6), and 46.5% (31.1-62.6), respectively. Metastatic carcinoma was the main cause of malignant tumor in enteric intussusception. Conversely, primary adenocarcinoma was the main cause of malignant tumor in ileocolic and colonic intussusception. Considering the high rate of malignancy of colonic intussusception the majority of the studies surveyed recommend en bloc resection without reduction to avoid potential intraluminal seeding or venous tumor dissemination. Pooled rates of postoperative complications and mortality were 22.1% (95% CI 17.5-27.5) and 5.2% (95% CI 3.7-7.4), respectively.

conclusionWhereas enteric intussusception can be managed by reduction followed by resection, colonic intussusception should be resected en bloc. Due to the intermediate forms between enteric and colonic intussusception, a selective approach is recommended. Surgery remains the mainstay in adult intussusception.

Indexed as

AdultColonColonic DiseasesColonoscopyEndoscopy, GastrointestinalFemaleHumansIntestine, SmallIntussusceptionMaleAdult intussusceptionColonic typeEnteric typeIleocolic type

Identifiers

PMID31011846
OpenAlexW2942368773

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.