ReviewCureus2023
A Meta-Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes After Laparoscopic Lavage Versus Colonic Resection in the Treatment of Perforated Diverticulitis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-Term Results After Laparoscopic Lavage for Perforated Diverticulitis Purulent Peritonitis in Sweden: A Population-Based Observational Study.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The management of perforated non-faeculent diverticulitis has traditionally involved performing a colonic resection (CR). Laparoscopic lavage (LL) has emerged as a less invasive alternative in recent years. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the role of LL in the surgical treatment of perforated non-faeculent diverticulitis. To that end, we conducted a search on Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases for comparative studies in the English language published till June 2021 [PROSPERO (CRD42021269410)]. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2)
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.