ReviewCureus2021
Can We Routinely Employ the Use of Low-Pressure Gynaecological Laparoscopy? A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- CRISPR/Cas9-mediated LINC00511 knockout strategies, increased apoptosis of breast cancer cells via suppressing antiapoptotic genes.Biological procedures online · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinicians have learnt valuable lessons throughout the COV-SARS-2 pandemic, many of which have produced solutions that we aim to continue to implement within the foreseeable future. Optimising patients' surgical pathways to reduce the length of stay and complications is an area of particular importance, both for maximal utilisation of available resources and for reduction of the exposure of inpatient and elective patients to an increased risk of infection within healthcare facilities. The aim of this review was to investigate the possible implications of using low-pressure laparoscopic gynaecological surgery versus standard- or high-pressure pneumoperitoneum surgeries. The primary outcome was postoperative pain, with secondary outcomes including duration of surgery, length of inpatient stay and rate of complications. MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to December 2020. We searched for published randomised control trials comparing low-pressure laparoscopic surgery (≤8 mmHg) to at least one additional standardised pneumoperitoneum pressure (≥12 mmHg and/or ≥15 mmHg). A total of 203 studies were reviewed, five of which were included in this analysis. Studies comparing low-pressure laparoscopic surgery against gasless abdominal cavities were excluded. The meta-analysis of the results was pooled and calculated within RevMan 5.0 software (Cochrane, London, England). Studies using a visual analogue scale (1-10) to compare low versus standard pneumoperitoneum pressures did not display a significant diminution of postoperative pain at ≤ 6 or 24 hours: -0.30 [95% CI -0.63, 0.03] and -0.66 [95% CI -1.35, 0.02], respectively. Studies additionally demonstrated worse visualisation of the surgical field within the low-pressure group (risk ratio 10.31; 95% CI, 1.29-82.38 I
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.