Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31471995›Full record

SynthesisJournal of veterinary internal medicine2019

Treatment of congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunts in dogs: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Gonçalo Serrano, Marios Charalambous, Nausikaa Devriendt, Hilde de Rooster, Femke Mortier, Dominique Paepe

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

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

6 authors.

Gonçalo SerranoSmall Animal Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0138-4064
Marios CharalambousSmall Animal Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6964-6307
Nausikaa DevriendtSmall Animal Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Hilde de RoosterSmall Animal Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Femke MortierSmall Animal Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Dominique PaepeSmall Animal Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral options have been proposed for the treatment of congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunts (cEHPSS) in dogs, but formal comparisons among different treatment options are currently unavailable. A previous evidence-based review (2012) found low quality of evidence for papers assessing the treatment of cEHPSS in dogs.

objectivesTo assess the quality of evidence available in the treatment of cEHPSS, summarize the current state of knowledge with respect to outcome after cEHPSS management, and compare different treatment techniques. ANIMALS: Not used.

methodsA bibliographic search was performed without date or language restrictions. Studies were assessed for quality of evidence (study design, study group sizes, subject enrollment quality, and overall risk of bias) and outcome measures reported (perioperative outcome, clinical outcome, and surgical or interventional outcome), all reported with 95% confidence intervals. A network meta-analysis was performed.

resultsForty-eight studies were included. Six retrospective studies (grade 4b) compared 2 techniques and 7 were abstracts (grade 5). The quality of evidence was low and risk of bias high. Regarding surgical outcome, statistically significant superiority of ameroid constrictor over thin film band was observed (P = .003). No other comparisons were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The evidence base of choice of treatment of cEHPSS in dogs remains weak despite recent publications on the subject. Ameroid is superior to thin film band in causing EHPSS closure. Blinded randomized studies comparing different treatment modalities, which routinely include postoperative imaging to assess cEHPSS closure and acquired portosystemic shunt development are essential.

Indexed as

AnimalsCaseinsDog DiseasesDogsHydrogelsLigationPortal SystemPortal VeinTreatment OutcomeameroidCaseinsHydrogelslivermeta-analysisportosystemic shuntsystematic reviewtreatment

Identifiers

PMID31471995
PMCPMC6766526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.