Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33305454›Full record

SynthesisColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2021

Definition of large bowel obstruction by primary colorectal cancer: A systematic review.

Joyce V Veld, Kim J Beek, Esther C J Consten, Frank Ter Borg, Henderik L van Westreenen, Wilhelmus A Bemelman, Jeanin E van Hooft, Pieter J Tanis

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 52% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Definition of large bowel obstruction by primary colorectal cancer: A systematic review.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Joyce V VeldDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Kim J BeekDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, NWZ Alkmaar, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
Esther C J ConstenDepartment of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Frank Ter BorgDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Deventer Hospital, Deventer, The Netherlands.
Henderik L van WestreenenDepartment of Surgery, Isala Zwolle, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Wilhelmus A BemelmanDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jeanin E van HooftDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pieter J TanisDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3146-3310
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLDeventer Ziekenhuis · NLIsala · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLMedisch Centrum Alkmaar · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimControversies on therapeutic strategy for large bowel obstruction by primary colorectal cancer mainly concern acute conditions, being essentially different from subacute obstruction. Clearly defining acute obstruction is important for design and interpretation of studies as well as for guidelines and daily practice. This systematic review aimed to evaluate definitions of obstruction by colorectal cancer in prospective studies.

methodA systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Eligibility criteria included randomized or prospective observational design, publication between 2000 and 2019, and the inclusion of patients with an obstruction caused by colorectal cancer. Provided definitions of obstruction were extracted with assessment of common elements.

resultsA total of 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 99 prospective observational studies were included. Obstruction was specified as acute in 28 studies, complete/emergency in five, (sub)acute or similar terms in four and unspecified in 78. Five of 16 RCTs (31%) and 37 of 99 cohort studies (37%) provided a definition. The definitions included any combination of clinical symptoms, physical signs, endoscopic features and radiological imaging findings in 25 studies. The definition was only based on clinical symptoms in 11 and radiological imaging in six studies. Definitions included a radiological component in 100% of evaluable RCTs (5/5) vs. 54% of prospective observational studies (20/37, P = 0.07).

conclusionIn this systematic review, the majority of prospective studies did not define obstruction by colorectal cancer and its urgency, whereas provided definitions varied hugely. Radiological confirmation seems to be an essential component in defining acute obstruction.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsIntestinal ObstructionCohort StudiesHumansObservational Studies as TopicProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID33305454
PMCPMC8248390
OpenAlexW3111952334

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.