Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35295893›Full record

SynthesisVisceral medicine2022

Vacuum Therapy and Internal Drainage as the First-Line Endoscopic Treatment for Post-Bariatric Leaks: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Issaree Laopeamthong, Thanita Akethanin, Wisit Kasetsermwiriya, Suphakarn Techapongsatorn, Amarit Tansawet

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Visceral medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

Issaree LaopeamthongVajira Minimally Invasive Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Thanita AkethaninMakarak Hospital, Kanchanaburi, Thailand.
Wisit KasetsermwiriyaVajira Minimally Invasive Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Suphakarn TechapongsatornVajira Minimally Invasive Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Amarit TansawetVajira Minimally Invasive Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Several endoscopic methods can be employed to manage post-bariatric leaks. However, endoluminal vacuum therapy (EVT) and endoscopic internal drainage (EID) are relatively new methods, and studies regarding these methods are scarce. We performed a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of EVT and EID. Methods: Databases were searched for eligible studies. The clinical success of leak closure was the primary outcome of interest. A proportional meta-analysis was performed for pooling the primary outcome using a fixed-effects model. A meta-analysis or descriptive analysis of other outcomes was performed based on the data availability. Results: Data from 3 EVT and 10 EID studies ( Conclusions: Both EVT and EID were effective when used as the first-line treatment for post-bariatric leaks. However, larger studies must be conducted to compare the efficacy of the 2 interventions.

Indexed as

Endoluminal vacuum therapyEndoscopic internal drainagePost-bariatric leak

Identifiers

PMID35295893
PMCPMC8874239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.