Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33339209›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2020

Review of Colonic Anastomotic Leakage and Prevention Methods.

Alex H Fang, Wilson Chao, Melanie Ecker

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Patient perspectives on AI-based decision support in surgery.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A 3D printable tissue adhesive.Nature communications · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alex H FangTexas Academy of Mathematics and Science, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203, USA.
Wilson ChaoTexas Academy of Mathematics and Science, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203, USA.
Melanie EckerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0603-6683
University of North Texas · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although surgeries involving anastomosis are relatively common, anastomotic leakages are potentially deadly complications of colorectal surgeries due to increased risk of morbidity and mortality. As a result of the potentially fatal effects of anastomotic leakages, a myriad of techniques and treatments have been developed to treat these unfortunate cases. In order to better understand the steps taken to treat this complication, we have created a composite review involving some of the current and best treatments for colonic anastomotic leakage that are available. The aim of this article is to present a background review of colonic anastomotic leakage, as well as current strategies to prevent and treat this condition, for a broader audience, including scientist, engineers, and especially biomedical engineers.

Indexed as

anastomotic leakagecolorectal surgeriesprevention

Identifiers

PMID33339209
PMCPMC7765607
OpenAlexW3111697745

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.