Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33682486›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2021

Diversion, resection, or stenting as a bridge to surgery for acute neoplastic left-sided colonic obstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies with curative intent.

P Gavriilidis, N de'Angelis, J Wheeler, A Askari, S Di Saverio, J R Davies

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. The Association of Polish Surgeons (APS) clinical guidelines for the use of laparoscopy in the management of abdominal emergencies. Part II.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

P GavriilidisImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
N de'AngelisUniversity Hospital Henri Mondor (AP-HP), Créteil, France.
J WheelerCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
A AskariLuton and Dunstable University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK.
S Di SaverioUniversity of Insubria, Italy.
J R DaviesCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBAssistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBLuton and Dunstable Hospital · GBUniversity of Insubria · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe debate on the best surgical management strategy for acute malignant left-sided colonic obstruction is ongoing. Decompressing colostomy (DC) and stenting as a bridge to surgery (SBTS) are the currently proposed alternative approaches to emergency colectomy (EC). However, the results of a traditional meta-analysis were inconclusive. Therefore, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the three approaches for acute left-sided colonic obstruction.

methodsA systematic literature search of Embase, PubMed, Google Scholar and the Cochrane library was performed. A traditional meta-analysis and subsequent NMA were conducted.

findingsA significantly greater number of primary anastomoses were performed in the DC cohort than in the EC and SBTS cohorts. The 90-day mortality rate was significantly lower in the DC cohort than in the EC and SBTS cohorts. Higher costs were associated with the SBTS cohort (by US$2,000) than with the EC cohort. The locoregional recurrence rate was higher for the SBTS cohort than for the EC cohort.

conclusionsEvidence from the first NMA suggests there may be some clinical advantages associated with DC as an alternative approach to the EC and SBTS approaches for adequately selected patients with malignant large bowel obstruction.

Indexed as

ColectomyColostomyStentsAcute DiseaseColonic DiseasesColonic NeoplasmsHumansIntestinal ObstructionAcute colectomyAcute resectionColonic obstructionDiversionEndoluminal stenting

Identifiers

PMID33682486
PMCPMC10335088
OpenAlexW3135744880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.