Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35357610›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2022

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcome of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in patients with ulcerative colitis versus patients with familial adenomatous polyposis.

S H Emile, S M Khan, E Silva-Alvarenga, Z Garoufalia, S D Wexner

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Pouchitis: pathophysiology and management.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2024
    Review
  8. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

S H EmileDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA. sameh200@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7854-5244
S M KhanDow Medical College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
E Silva-AlvarengaDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA.
Z GaroufaliaDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA.
S D WexnerDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA.
Cleveland Clinic Florida · USDow University of Health Sciences · PKMansoura University Hospital · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIleal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is commonly used to restore gastrointestinal continuity after surgical treatment of mucosal ulcerative colitis (MUC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). The aim of the present systematic review was to compare the outcomes of patients with MUC and patients with FAP who underwent IPAA.

methodsA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant systematic review was performed. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through December 2021. Cohort and randomized studies were eligible for inclusion if they directly compared patients with MUC and FAP who underwent IPAA. The main outcome measures were pouch failure, complications, and need for pouch excision or revision. ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias across the studies. A random-effect meta-analysis was conducted.

resultsTwenty-three studies (9200 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Seven thousand nine hundred fifty (86.4%) had MUC and 1250 (13.6%) had FAP. The median age of patients was 33.1 years. The male to female ratio was 1.4:1. MUC had higher odds of pouchitis (OR 3.9, 95% CI 2.8-5.4, p < 0.001), stricture (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.25-2.65, p = 0.002), fistula (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.18-2.54, p = 0.004), and total complications (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.3-2.77, p < 0.001) as compared to FAP. Both groups had similar odds of pelvic sepsis, leakage, pouch failure, excision, revision, and fecal incontinence.

conclusionsAlthough patients with MUC undergoing IPAA may be at a higher risk of developing complications, particularly pouchitis, stricture, and fistula; the ultimate and functional outcome of the pouch is similar to patients with FAP. Pouch failure, excision and revision were similar in the two groups.

Indexed as

Adenomatous Polyposis ColiColitis, UlcerativeColonic PouchesPouchitisProctocolectomy, RestorativeAdultAnastomosis, SurgicalConstriction, PathologicFemaleHumansMalePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeFamilial adenomatous polyposisIleal pouch-anal anastomosisMeta-analysisOutcomeSystematic reviewUlcerative colitis

Identifiers

PMID35357610
OpenAlexW4220657413

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.