Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33581733›Full record

ReviewOrphanet journal of rare diseases2021

Consensuses and controversies on pseudomyxoma peritonei: a review of the published consensus statements and guidelines.

Yu-Lin Lin, Da-Zhao Xu, Xin-Bao Li, Feng-Cai Yan, Hong-Bin Xu, Zheng Peng, Yan Li

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The addition of collagenase to BromAcPleura and peritoneum · 2025
    Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Natural History from Appendiceal Mucocele to Jelly Belly.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yu-Lin LinDepartment of Peritoneal Cancer Surgery, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 10 Tieyi Road, Yangfangdian Street, Haidian District, Beijing, 100038, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8557-7495
Da-Zhao XuDepartment of Peritoneal Cancer Surgery, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 10 Tieyi Road, Yangfangdian Street, Haidian District, Beijing, 100038, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4696-1881
Xin-Bao LiDepartment of Peritoneal Cancer Surgery, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 10 Tieyi Road, Yangfangdian Street, Haidian District, Beijing, 100038, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1253-8361
Feng-Cai YanDepartment of Pathology, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100038, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8815-1692
Hong-Bin XuDepartment of Myxoma, Aero Space Central Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, 100049, China.
Zheng PengDepartment of General Surgery, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Yan LiDepartment of Peritoneal Cancer Surgery, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 10 Tieyi Road, Yangfangdian Street, Haidian District, Beijing, 100038, China. liyansd2@163.com.ORCID 0000-0001-6018-6538
Capital Medical University · CNChinese PLA General Hospital · CNPeking University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) is a clinical malignant syndrome mainly originating from the appendix, with an incidence of 2-4 per million people. As a rare disease, an early and accurate diagnosis of PMP is difficult. It was not until the 1980s that the systematic study of this disease was started. MAIN BODY: As a result of clinical and basic research progress over the last 4 decades, a comprehensive strategy based on cytoreductive surgery (CRS) + hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been established and proved to be an effective treatment for PMP. Currently, CRS + HIPEC was recommended as the standard treatment for PMP worldwide. There are several consensuses on PMP management, playing an important role in the standardization of CRS + HIPEC. However, controversies exist among consensuses published worldwide. A systematic evaluation of PMP consensuses helps not only to standardize PMP treatment but also to identify existing controversies and point to possible solutions in the future. The controversy underlying the consensus and vice versa promotes the continuous refinement and updating of consensuses and continue to improve PMP management through a gradual and continuous process. In this traditional narrative review, we systemically evaluated the consensuses published by major national and international academic organizations, aiming to get a timely update on the treatment strategies of CRS + HIPEC on PMP.

conclusionCurrently, consensuses have been reached on the following aspects: pathological classification, terminology, preoperative evaluation, eligibility for surgical treatment, maximal tumor debulking, CRS technical details, and severe adverse event classification system. However, controversies still exist regarding the HIPEC regimen, systemic chemotherapy, and early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Indexed as

Hyperthermia, InducedPeritoneal NeoplasmsPseudomyxoma PeritoneiConsensusCytoreduction Surgical ProceduresHumansClinical managementConsensusControversyPeritoneal carcinomatosisPeritoneal Surface Oncology Group InternationalPseudomyxoma peritoneiTraditional narrative review

Identifiers

PMID33581733
PMCPMC7881689
OpenAlexW3129712472

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.