Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35708377›Full record

ReviewJournal of minimal access surgery

The outcome of bioabsorbable staple line reinforcement versus standard stapler for distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Beshoy Effat Elkomos, Philopateer Effat Elkomos, Amir Ali Salem, Philobater Bhgat Adly

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of minimal access surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Beshoy Effat ElkomosDepartment of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University Hospital, Cairo, Egypt.
Philopateer Effat ElkomosFaculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Amir Ali SalemDepartment of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University Hospital, Cairo, Egypt.
Philobater Bhgat AdlyDepartment of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University Hospital, Cairo, Egypt.
Ain Shams University Hospital · EGAin Shams University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aim: In the era of minimally invasive procedures and as a way to decrease the incidence of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF), the use of staplers for distal pancreatectomy (DP) has increased dramatically. Our aim was to investigate whether reinforced staplers decrease the incidence of clinically relevant PF after DP compared with staplers without reinforcement. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies from inception to 1 November 2021, and a systematic review and a meta-analysis were done to detect the outcomes after using reinforced staplers versus standard stapler for DP. Results: Seven studies with a total of 681 patients were included. The overall incidence of POPF and the incidence of Grade A POPF after DP are similar for the two groups (overall POPF, risk ratio [RR] = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.71-1.01, P = 0.06; I Conclusion: Although staple line reinforcement after DP failed to prevent biochemical PF, it significantly reduced the rate of clinically relevant POPF in comparison to standard stapling.

Indexed as

Distal pancreatectomypancreatic fistulareinforcementstapler

Identifiers

PMID35708377
PMCPMC9306122
OpenAlexW4283019124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.