ArticleMedicine2020
Open abdomen treatment for complicated intra-abdominal infection patients with gastrointestinal fistula can reduce the mortality.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stepwise plication of abdominal mesh technique for open abdomen closure.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the effect of the open abdomen (OA) and closed abdomen (CA) approaches for treating intestinal fistula with complicated intra-abdominal infection (IFWCIAI), and analyze the risk factors in OA treatment.IFWCIAI is associated with high mortality rates and healthcare costs, as well as longer postoperative hospital stay. However, OA treatment has also been linked with increased mortality and development of secondary intestinal fistula.A total of 195 IFWCIAI patients who were operated over a period of 7 years at our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. These patients were divided into the OA group (n = 112) and CA group (n = 83) accordingly, and the mortality rates, hospital costs, and hospital stay duration of both groups were compared. In addition, the risk factors in OA treatment were also analyzed.OA resulted in significantly lower mortality rates (9.8% vs 30.1%, P < .001) and hospital costs ($11721.40 ± $9368.86 vs $20365.36 ± $21789.06, P < .001) compared with the CA group. No incidences of secondary intestinal fistula was recorded and the duration of hospital stay was similar for both groups (P = .151). Delayed OA was an independent risk factor of death following OA treatment (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.316; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.068-1.623, P = .010), whereas early enteral nutrition (EN) exceeding 666.67 mL was a protective factor (HR = 0.996; 95% CI = 0.993-0.999, P = .018). In addition, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Candida albicans were the main pathogens responsible for the death of patients after OA treatment.OA decreased mortality rates and hospital costs of IFWCIAI patients, and did not lead to any secondary fistulas. Early OA and EN also reduced mortality rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.