ArticleInternational journal of surgery protocols2021
Does the Choice of Extraction Site During Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery Change the Incidence of Incisional Hernia? Protocol for a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Article in International journal of surgery protocols, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical observation of extraction-site incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious sites are used for specimen extraction in oncological minimally invasive colorectal surgery. The objective is to determine if the choice of extraction site modulates the incidence of incisional hernia (IH). METHODS/
designA systematic review will be performed in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL will be searched to look for original studies reporting the incidence of IH after minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Studies will be excluded from the analysis if: 1) they do not report original data, 2) the outcome of interest (incidence of incisional hernia) is not clearly reported and does not allow to extrapolate and/or calculate the required data for network meta-analysis, 3) they include pediatric patients, 4) they include a patients' population with a conversion rate to laparotomy >10%, 5) they do not compare at least two different extraction sites for the operative specimen, 6) they report patients who underwent pure (and not hybrid) natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). Network meta-analysis will be performed to determine the incidence of IH per extraction site. DISCUSSION: By determining which specimen extraction site leads to reduced rate of IH, this systematic review and network meta-analysis will help colorectal surgeons to choose their extraction site and reduce the morbidity and costs associated with IH. REGISTRATION: The systematic review and meta-analysis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with number CRD42021272226. HIGHLIGHTS: Various sites are used for specimen extraction in oncological minimally invasive colorectal surgery, and the choice of the site may probably modulate the incidence of incisional hernia.The present protocol aims to design a systematic review which will identify original studies comparing two extraction sites during minimally invasive colorectal surgery in terms of incidence of incisional hernia.Network meta-analysis will be performed to determine the incidence of IH per extraction site.
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.