SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2020
A comparison between limited bowel preparation and comprehensive bowel preparation in radical cystectomy with ileal urinary diversion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in International urology and nephrology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association Between Antibiotic Prophylaxis Before Cystectomy or Stent Removal and Infection Complications: A Systematic Review.European urology focus · 2023Pooled it
- Adhesion-regulating molecule 1 (ADRM1) can be a potential biomarker and target for bladder cancer.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeOur aim is to evaluate the value of limited bowel preparation (LBP) in radical cystectomy (RC) with ileal urinary diversion (IUD).
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted on electronic database up to February 2020. All data were analyzed using RevMan5 (version 5.3). A subgroup analysis comparing the efficacy of CBP and no bowel preparation (NBP) was also performed.
resultsSix randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 743 patients were finally enrolled for statistical analysis. According to the meta-analysis, there was no significant difference between LBP group and comprehensive bowel preparation (CBP) group, concerning operative time (p = 0.79), length of stay (p = 0.46), the time to first toleration of clear liquids (p = 0.95), and overall complications (p = 0.29). However, the time to first bowel activity (SMD: - 0.77, 95% CI - 1.47 to - 0.07, p = 0.03), risk of fever (RR: 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.85, p = 0.008), time to first flatus (SMD: - 1.06, 95% CI - 2.02 to - 0.10, p = 0.03), and risk of wound healing disorders (RR: 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.95, p = 0.03) were significantly lower in LBP group compared with CBP group. Subgroup analysis showed a significant lower risk of wound healing disorders in favor of NBP (RR: 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.87, p = 0.01).
conclusionsCurrent evidence indicated that LBP protocols might accelerate recovery of gastrointestinal function, promote wound healing, and reduce the risk of fever without increasing complications in patients undergoing RC with IUD. Besides, bowel preparation also did not hinder wound healing. Further, well-designed RCTs conducted by experienced surgeons are warranted before making the final clinical guidelines.
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.