Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35071734›Full record

ArticlePleura and peritoneum2021

Consensus statement on safety measures for pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy.

Arnaud Girardot-Miglierina, Daniel Clerc, Mohammad Alyami, Laurent Villeneuve, Olivia Sgarbura, Marc-André Reymond, Martin Hübner, ISSPP PIPAC study group

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pleura and peritoneum, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Arnaud Girardot-MiglierinaDepartment of Visceral Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital CHUV, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Daniel ClercDepartment of Visceral Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital CHUV, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9285-3312
Mohammad AlyamiDepartment of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Oncology Center, King Khalid Hospital, Najran, Saudi Arabia.
Laurent VilleneuveDepartment of Public Health, Clinical Research and Epidemiological Unit, Lyon University Hospital, Lyon, France.
Olivia SgarburaDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Cancer Institute Montpellier (ICM), Montpellier, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6965-3697
Marc-André ReymondDepartment of General and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Tübingen and National Center for Pleura and Peritoneum, Tübingen, Germany.
Martin HübnerDepartment of Visceral Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital CHUV, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
ISSPP PIPAC study group
University of Lausanne · CHInserm · FRKing Khaled Hospital · SAUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a promising treatment for peritoneal cancer that entails, however, potential risks for the caregivers in the operating room (OR). This study aimed to reach a consensus within the PIPAC community on a comprehensive safety protocol.

methodsActive PIPAC centers were invited to participate in a two-round Delphi process on 43 predefined items: concise summaries of the existing evidence were presented together with questions formulated using the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome framework. According to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, the strength of recommendation was voted by panelists, accepting a consensus threshold of ≥50% of the agreement for any of the four grading options, or ≥70% in either direction.

resultsForty-seven out of 66 invited panelists answered both rounds (response rate 76%). The consensus was reached for 41 out of 43 items (95.3%). Strong and weak recommendations were issued for 30 and 10 items, respectively. A positive consensual recommendation was issued to activate laminar airflow without specific strength, neither strong nor weak. No consensus was reached for systematic glove change for caregivers with a high risk of exposure and filtering facepiece mask class 3 for caregivers with low risk of exposure.

conclusionsA high degree of consensus was reached for a comprehensive safety protocol for PIPAC, adapted to the risk of exposure for the different caregivers in the OR. This consensus can serve as a basis for education and help reach a high degree of adherence in daily practice.

Indexed as

education and trainingexpert consensuspersonal protective equipmentPIPACsafety

Identifiers

PMID35071734
PMCPMC8719448
OpenAlexW3210289499

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.