Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35350141›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2022

Laparoscopy vs. Laparotomy for the Management of Abdominal Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Jianjun Wang, Liangwang Cheng, Jing Liu, Binyin Zhang, Weijun Wang, Wenxin Zhu, Yan Guo, Chuanfei Bao, Yunli Hu, Shanxin Qi and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Role of laparoscopic surgery in managing hemodynamically stable abdominal trauma patients: a single level I trauma center, propensity score matching study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024
    Article
  20. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jianjun WangDepartment of Emergency, Taihe People's Hospital, Fuyang, China.
Liangwang ChengDepartment of Emergency, Taihe People's Hospital, Fuyang, China.
Jing LiuDepartment of Emergency, Taihe People's Hospital, Fuyang, China.
Binyin ZhangDepartment of Endocrine, Taihe People's Hospital, Fuyang, China.
Weijun WangDepartment of Emergency, Taihe People's Hospital, Fuyang, China.
Wenxin ZhuDepartment of Emergency, Taihe People's Hospital, Fuyang, China.
Yan GuoDepartment of Emergency, Taihe People's Hospital, Fuyang, China.
Chuanfei BaoDepartment of Emergency, Taihe People's Hospital, Fuyang, China.
Yunli HuDepartment of Emergency, Taihe People's Hospital, Fuyang, China.
Shanxin QiDepartment of Emergency, Taihe People's Hospital, Fuyang, China.
Kai WangDepartment of Emergency, Taihe People's Hospital, Fuyang, China.
Shuguang ZhaoDepartment of Emergency, Taihe People's Hospital, Fuyang, China.
Fuyang City People's Hospital · CNTaihe Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: There is still no consensus regarding the role of laparoscopy in trauma cases. The purpose of this paper is to assess the value of diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy for patients with blunt or penetrating abdominal trauma by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systemically searched for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCT comparative studies on effectiveness and safety of laparoscopy vs. laparotomy for the two authors independently performed the search, data extraction, and quality assessment. Results: A total of 5,517 patients were enrolled in 23 eligible studies that were published in English. Meta-analysis results suggest that there is no significant difference in the incidence of missed injury and mortality between abdominal trauma patients receiving laparoscopy and those receiving laparotomy. Concerning postoperative complications, compared with patients in the open surgery group, those in the laparoscopy group are at a similar risk of intra-abdominal abscesses, thromboembolism, and ileus, while there is a decreased incidence of wound infection and pneumonia. Besides, patients in the laparoscopy group experience shorter hospitalization times and procedure times. For most outcomes, the sensitivity analysis yielded similar results to the primary analysis. Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgery is a practical alternative to laparotomy for appropriate patients. The decision to perform laparoscopy should be based on the experience of the surgeon and the resources available.

Indexed as

abdominal traumalaparoscopylaparotomymeta-analysissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35350141
PMCPMC8957831
OpenAlexW4221099229

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.