Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35245000›Full record

SynthesisJournal of gynecologic oncology2022

Protective ostomies in ovarian cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Beatriz Navarro Santana, Esmeralda Garcia Torralba, Jose Verdu Soriano, Maria Laseca, Alicia Martin Martinez

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Beatriz Navarro SantanaDoctoral School of the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ULPGC), Las Palmas, Spain. bea_0904@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5572-7843
Esmeralda Garcia TorralbaHematology and Medical Oncology Department, Morales Meseguer University Hospital, Centro Regional de Hemodonacion, IMIB-Arrixaca, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3744-2182
Jose Verdu SorianoDepartment of Community Nursing, Preventive Medicine, Public Health and History of Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8307-7323
Maria LasecaDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Insular Materno-Infantil University Hospital, Las Palmas, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0777-3124
Alicia Martin MartinezDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Insular Materno-Infantil University Hospital, Las Palmas, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4237-6378
Hospital Universitario Insular de Gran Canaria · ESCentro Regional de Hemodonación · ESUniversidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria · ESUniversity of Alicante · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the benefit of protective ostomies on anastomotic leak rate, urgent re-operations, and mortality due to anastomotic leak complications in ovarian cancer surgery.

methodsA systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for all studies on anastomotic leak and ostomy formation related to ovarian cancer surgery. Non-controlled studies, case series, abstracts, case reports, study protocols, and letters to the editor were excluded. Meta-analysis was performed on the primary endpoint of anastomotic leak rate. Subgroup analysis was carried out based on type of bowel resection and bevacizumab use. Secondary endpoints were urgent re-operations and mortality associated with anastomotic leak, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, 30-day readmission rate, adjuvant chemotherapy, survival, and reversal surgery in ostomy and non-ostomy patients.

resultsA total of 17 studies (2,719 patients) were included: 16 retrospective cohort studies, and 1 case-control study. Meta-analysis of 17 studies did not show a decrease in anastomotic leak rate in ostomy patients (odds ratio [OR]=1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.60-1.70; p=0.980). Meta-analysis of ten studies (1,452 women) did not find a decrease in urgent re-operations in the ostomy group (OR=0.72; 95% CI=0.35-1.46; p=0.360). Other outcomes were not considered for meta-analysis due to the lack of data in included studies.

conclusionProtective ostomies did not decrease anastomotic leak rates, and urgent re-operations in ovarian cancer surgery. This evidence supports the use of ostomies in very select cases.

Indexed as

OstomyOvarian NeoplasmsAnastomotic LeakCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansRetrospective StudiesAnastomotic LeakOstomyOvarian Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID35245000
PMCPMC8899871
OpenAlexW4213387076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.