ReviewFrontiers in surgery2023
Comparison of the complications of passive drainage and active suction drainage after pancreatectomy: A meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 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.
- Surgery-related factors for pancreatic fistula after pancreatectomy: an umbrella review.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the effect of passive drainage and active suction drainage on complications after pancreatectomy. Methods: The databases were searched and covered in this study on the comparison of passive and active suction drainage after pancreatectomy from the database establishment to Feb. 2023. A meta-analysis was conducted with the RevMan5.3 software. Results: On the whole, 1,903 cases were included in eight studies, including 994 cases in the passive drainage group, 909 in the active suction drainage group, 1,224 in the pancreaticoduodenectomy group, as well as 679 in the distal pancreatectomy group. No statistically significant difference was identified between the two groups in the incidence of total complications, the rate of abdominal hemorrhage, the rate of abdominal effusion, the death rate and the length of stay after pancreatectomy (all Conclusion: After distal pancreatectomy, active suction drainage might down-regulate the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula.
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.