Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35610657›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of emergency surgery : WJES2022

Combined endoscopic and radiologic intervention for management of acute perforated peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial.

Said Negm, Hatem Mohamed, Ahmed Shafiq, Taha AbdelKader, Adel Ismail, Mahmoud Yassin, Bassam Mousa, Mohamed Abozaid, Yasser A Orban, Mazoun Al Alawi and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of emergency surgery : WJES, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Said NegmFaculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt. said.negm@outlook.com.
Hatem MohamedFaculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Ahmed ShafiqFaculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Taha AbdelKaderSur Hospital, Ministry of Health, Muscat, Oman.
Adel IsmailIsmailia Teaching Oncology Hospital, Ismailia, Egypt.
Mahmoud YassinFaculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Bassam MousaFaculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Mohamed AbozaidFaculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Yasser A OrbanFaculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Mazoun Al AlawiMinistry of Health, Muscat, Oman.
Ahmed FaragFaculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Zagazig University · EGMinistry of Health · OM

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeptic ulcer perforation is a common life-threatening surgical emergency. Graham omental patch is performed for plugging of perforated peptic ulcer. Many endoscopic methods have been used to treat acute perforated peptic ulcer such as over the scope clips, standard endoscopic clips, endoscopic sewing and metallic stents. The main idea in endoscopic management of acute perforated peptic ulcer is early decontamination and decrease sepsis by interventional radiologic drainage.

methodsThis is a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. This study included patients who were developed acute perforated peptic ulcer manifestations and were admitted to our hospital between December 2019 and August 2021. Sample size was 100 patients divided into 2 equal groups. Endoscopic group (EG): included 50 patients who were subjected to endoscopic management. Surgical group (SG): included 50 patients who were subjected to surgical management.

resultsOne hundred patients were randomized into 2 groups: SG (50) and EG (50). Median age of patients was 36 (range 27:54) and 47 (range 41:50) years-old in SG and EG, respectively. Males constituted 72% and 66% in SG and EG, respectively. Median length of postoperative hospital stay was 1 (range: 1-2) days in EG, while in SG was 7 (range 6-8) days. Postoperative complications in SG patients were 58% in form of fever, pneumonia, leak, abdominal abscess, renal failure and incisional hernia (11%, 5%, 5%, 3%, 2% and 3%, respectively). Postoperative complications in EG patients were 24% in form of fever, pneumonia, leak, abdominal abscess, renal failure and incisional hernia (10%, 0%, 2%, 0%, 0% and 0%, respectively).

conclusionCombined endoscopic and interventional radiological drainage can effectively manage acute perforated peptic ulcer without the need for general anesthesia, with short operative time, in high risk surgical patients with low incidence of morbidity & mortality.

Indexed as

Abdominal AbscessIncisional HerniaLaparoscopyPeptic Ulcer PerforationRenal InsufficiencyAcute DiseaseAdultHumansMalePostoperative ComplicationsClippingEndoscopyPeptic ulcerStentSurgical emergency

Identifiers

PMID35610657
PMCPMC9131571
OpenAlexW4282928788

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.