Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37150800›Full record

ReviewTechniques in coloproctology2023

A network meta-analysis of surgical treatments of complete rectal prolapse.

S H Emile, S M Khan, Z Garoufalia, E Silva-Alvarenga, R Gefen, N Horesh, M R Freund, S D Wexner

Abstract readReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Techniques in coloproctology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

S H EmileEllen Leifer Shulman and Steven Shulman Digestive Disease Center, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, 33331, USA.
S M KhanDow Medical College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Z GaroufaliaEllen Leifer Shulman and Steven Shulman Digestive Disease Center, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, 33331, USA.
E Silva-AlvarengaEllen Leifer Shulman and Steven Shulman Digestive Disease Center, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, 33331, USA.
R GefenEllen Leifer Shulman and Steven Shulman Digestive Disease Center, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, 33331, USA.
N HoreshEllen Leifer Shulman and Steven Shulman Digestive Disease Center, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, 33331, USA.
M R FreundEllen Leifer Shulman and Steven Shulman Digestive Disease Center, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, 33331, USA.
S D WexnerEllen Leifer Shulman and Steven Shulman Digestive Disease Center, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, 33331, USA. wexners@ccf.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8046-5753
Cleveland Clinic Florida · USDow University of Health Sciences · PKHebrew University of Jerusalem · ILMansoura University Hospital · EGShaare Zedek Medical Center · ILSheba Medical Center · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSurgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse can be undertaken via an abdominal or a perineal approach. The present network meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of different abdominal and perineal procedures for rectal prolapse in terms of recurrence, complications, and improvement in fecal incontinence (FI).

methodsA PRISMA-compliant systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted. Randomized clinical trials comparing two or more procedures for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROB-2 tool. The main outcomes were recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse, complications, operation time, and improvement in FI.

resultsNine randomized controlled trials with 728 patients were included. The follow-up ranged between 12 and 47 months. Posterior mesh rectopexy had significantly lower odds of recurrence than did the Altemeier procedure (logOR, - 12.75;  95% credible intervals, - 40.91, - 1.75), Delorme procedure (- 13.10; - 41.26, - 2.09), resection rectopexy (- 11.98; - 41.36, - 0.19), sponge rectopexy (- 13.19; - 42.87, - 0.54), and sutured rectopexy (- 13.12; - 42.58, - 1.50), but similar odds to ventral mesh rectopexy (- 12.09; - 41.7, 0.03). Differences among the procedures in complications, operation time, and improvement in FI were not significant.

conclusionsPosterior mesh rectopexy ranked best with the lowest recurrence while perineal procedures ranked worst with the highest recurrence rates.

Indexed as

Digestive System Surgical ProceduresFecal IncontinenceLaparoscopyRectal ProlapseHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRectumRecurrenceSurgical MeshTreatment OutcomeMeta-analysisNetworkRectal prolapseSurgical treatment

Identifiers

PMID37150800
OpenAlexW4375844260

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.