ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2021
Mesh repair for lateral inguinal hernias: a non-evidence-based practice.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- It's time to re-acknowledge the differences.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe EHS clinical guidelines recommend the use of mesh to repair symptomatic primary inguinal hernias (PIH) in adult males but, in spite of this, it begs the question as to why there is still place for tissue techniques. Lack of stratification of patients according to risk of recurrence in RCTs might be a cause of results disparity, since medial and mixed are hernias with higher risk of recurrence (HRRH), whereas lateral hernias present a lower risk (LRRH).
objectiveTo determine whether the lack of stratification may lead to questionable conclusions regarding the protective effect of mesh techniques and to identify other methodological flaws.
methodsIn the RCTs included in the clinical guidelines that addressed recurrences of PIH after mesh and non-mesh techniques, we assessed the type of hernias classification used, the number needed to treat in LRRH and HRRH and the statistical power.
resultsMost of trials were underpowered; five studies classified the hernia types; in the three studies that compared the recurrence rates of LRRH and HRRH the effect of mesh techniques was small; only two trials record data needed to calculate the NNT in LRRH (46 y 84 patients, respectively).
conclusionThe idea that mesh techniques reduce the recurrence rate in all PIHs is not supported by high level of evidence. The NNT for pure lateral hernias was very high and should be interpreted taking into account chronic pain rates and costs.
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.