Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31344302›Full record

ArticleColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2020

A multicentre cohort study of serum and peritoneal biomarkers to predict anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer resection.

C L Sparreboom, N Komen, D Rizopoulos, A P Verhaar, W A Dik, Z Wu, H L van Westreenen, P G Doornebosch, J W T Dekker, A G Menon and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The Science of Anastomotic Healing.Seminars in colon & rectal surgery · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

19 authors at 12 institutions in 3 countries.

C L SparreboomDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4606-6895
N KomenDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Antwerp, University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium.
D RizopoulosDepartment of Biostatistics, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
A P VerhaarDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
W A DikDepartment of Immunology, Laboratory Medical Immunology, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Z WuDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
H L van WestreenenDepartment of Surgery, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
P G DoorneboschDepartment of Surgery, IJsselland Ziekenhuis, Capelle aan den Ijssel, The Netherlands.
J W T DekkerDepartment of Surgery, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, The Netherlands.
A G MenonDepartment of Surgery, IJsselland Ziekenhuis, Capelle aan den Ijssel, The Netherlands.
F DaamsDepartment of Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
D LipsDepartment of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis, Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
W M U van GrevensteinDepartment of Surgery, Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
T M KarstenDepartment of Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Y BayonSofradim Production, A Medtronic Company, Trévoux, France.
M P PeppelenboschDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
A M WolthuisDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1200-387X
A D'HooreDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
J F LangeDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLKU Leuven · BEAmsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLHavenziekenhuis Rotterdam · NLIJsselland Ziekenhuis · NLIsala · NLJeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis · NLOLVG · NLReinier de Graaf Hospital · NLSofradir (France) · FRUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity of Antwerp · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimAnastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most feared complications after rectal resection. This study aimed to assess a combination of biomarkers for early detection of AL after rectal cancer resection.

methodThis study was an international multicentre prospective cohort study. All patients received a pelvic drain after rectal cancer resection. On the first three postoperative days drain fluid was collected daily and C-reactive protein (CRP) was measured. Matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP2), MMP9, glucose, lactate, interleukin 1-beta (IL1β), IL6, IL10, tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, lipopolysaccharide-binding protein and amylase were measured in the drain fluid. Prediction models for AL were built for each postoperative day using multivariate penalized logistic regression. Model performance was estimated by the c-index for discrimination. The model with the best performance was visualized with a nomogram and calibration was plotted.

resultsA total of 292 patients were analysed; 38 (13.0%) patients suffered from AL, with a median interval to diagnosis of 6.0 (interquartile ratio 4.0-14.8) days. AL occurred less often after partial than after total mesorectal excision (4.9% vs 15.2%, P = 0.035). Of all patients with AL, 26 (68.4%) required reoperation. AL was more often treated by reoperation in patients without a diverting ileostomy (18/20 vs 8/18, P = 0.03). The prediction model for postoperative day 1 included MMP9, TNFα, diverting ileostomy and surgical technique (c-index = 0.71). The prediction model for postoperative day 2 only included CRP (c-index = 0.69). The prediction model for postoperative day 3 included CRP and MMP9 and obtained the best model performance (c-index = 0.78).

conclusionThe combination of serum CRP and peritoneal MMP9 may be useful for earlier prediction of AL after rectal cancer resection. In clinical practice, this combination of biomarkers should be interpreted in the clinical context as with any other diagnostic tool.

Indexed as

Anastomotic LeakAscitic FluidBiomarkersC-Reactive ProteinDrainageFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMatrix Metalloproteinase 9Middle AgedNomogramsPeritoneumPostoperative PeriodPredictive Value of TestsProctectomyBiomarkersC-Reactive ProteinMatrix Metalloproteinase 9Anastomotic leakagebiomarkersdrain fluidearly detectionrectal resection

Identifiers

PMID31344302
PMCPMC6973162
OpenAlexW2964115297

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.