Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31152271›Full record

SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2019

A systematic methodological review of non-randomised interventional studies of elective ventral hernia repair: clear definitions and a standardised minimum dataset are needed.

S G Parker, S Halligan, M Erotocritou, C P J Wood, R W Boulton, A A O Plumb, A C J Windsor, S Mallett

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

S G ParkerThe Abdominal Wall Unit UCLH, GI Services Department, University College London Hospital, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK. samgparker@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3710-9953
S HalliganUCL Centre for Medical Imaging, 2nd Floor Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS, UK.
M ErotocritouThe Abdominal Wall Unit UCLH, GI Services Department, University College London Hospital, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK.
C P J WoodThe Abdominal Wall Unit UCLH, GI Services Department, University College London Hospital, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK.
R W BoultonThe Abdominal Wall Unit UCLH, GI Services Department, University College London Hospital, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK.
A A O PlumbUCL Centre for Medical Imaging, 2nd Floor Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS, UK.
A C J WindsorThe Abdominal Wall Unit UCLH, GI Services Department, University College London Hospital, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK.
S MallettThe Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.

Funding

Allergan Foundation Educational GrantDepartment of Health PB-PG-0816-20005National Institute for Health Research RfPB PB-PG-0816-20005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVentral hernias (VHs) often recur after surgical repair and subsequent attempts at repair are especially challenging. Rigorous research to reduce recurrence is required but such studies must be well-designed and report representative and comprehensive outcomes.

objectiveWe aimed to assesses methodological quality of non-randomised interventional studies of VH repair by systematic review.

methodsWe searched the indexed literature for non-randomised studies of interventions for VH repair, January 1995 to December 2017 inclusive. Each prospective study was coupled with a corresponding retrospective study using pre-specified criteria to provide matched, comparable groups. We applied a bespoke methodological tool for hernia trials by combining relevant items from existing published tools. Study introduction and rationale, design, participant inclusion criteria, reported outcomes, and statistical methods were assessed.

resultsFifty studies (17,608 patients) were identified: 25 prospective and 25 retrospective. Overall, prospective studies scored marginally higher than retrospective studies for methodological quality, median score 17 (IQR: 14-18) versus 15 (IQR 12-18), respectively. For the sub-categories investigated, prospective studies achieved higher median scores for their, 'introduction', 'study design' and 'participants'. Surprisingly, no study stated that a protocol had been written in advance. Only 18 (36%) studies defined a primary outcome, and only 2 studies (4%) described a power calculation. No study referenced a standardised definition for VH recurrence and detection methods for recurrence varied widely. Methodological quality did not improve with publication year or increasing journal impact factor.

conclusionCurrently, non-randomised interventional studies of VH repair are methodologically poor. Clear outcome definitions and a standardised minimum dataset are needed.

Indexed as

HerniorrhaphyOutcome Assessment, Health CareHernia, VentralHumansRecurrenceResearch DesignHerniaMethodologyStandardisationStudiesVentral

Identifiers

PMID31152271
PMCPMC6838456

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.