Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36268326›Full record

ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2022

Operative versus non-operative management for perforated peptic ulcer disease.

Sapna Gupta, Awad Ali Alawad, Kimberly Dacosta, Adel Mahmoud, Taghreed Mohammed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Sapna GuptaSafdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Awad Ali AlawadUniversity of Medical Sciences and Technology, Khartoum, Sudan.
Kimberly DacostaUniversity Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK.
Adel MahmoudUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.
Taghreed MohammedTabuk Hospital, Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment guidelines are still up for discussion. Due to the morbidity and mortality linked to each, the use of both operative and non-operative management, including conservative and endoscopic treatment, is still debatable. A standardized protocol has been used to write a best evidence topic. The discussion focused on whether operative management for PPU is preferable to non-operational management or vice versa. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and the Web of Science were the databases used to conduct an electronic search of the pertinent literature. We found 56 articles, out of these only 5 studies were found to be appropriate to answer the question. The outcome assessed was failure of management. The best evidence showed that both operative and non-operative management can be used with similar outcomes depending on the patient selection for each category.

Indexed as

ManagementOperative versus non-operativePerforated peptic ulcer

Identifiers

PMID36268326
PMCPMC9577597

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.