Observational studyRevista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social2023
[Comparison of protective colostomy vs. ileostomy in rectal cancer surgery].
Observational study in Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhanced recovery and reduced conversion rates in robotic rectal cancer surgery: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rectal cancer (RC) is the 3rd most frequent one in Mexico. Protective stoma in resection and anastomosis is controversial. Objective: To compare quality of life (QoL), functional capacity (FC) and complications in rectal cancer (RC) patients with low and ultralow anterior resection (LAR and ULAR) with loop transverse colostomy (LTC) versus protective ileostomy (IP). Material and methods: Comparative, observational study in patients with RC and LTC (Group 1) or IP (Group 2) from 2018-2021. FC pre and postoperative, complications, hospital readmission (HR) and assessment by other specialty (AS) were assessed; QoL was assessed with EQ-5D by telephone. Student-t test, Chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney-U test were used. Results: Group 1: 12 patients: mean preoperative FC: ECOG 0.83, Karnofsky 91.66%; postoperative: ECOG 1, Karnofsky 89.17%. Mean postoperative QoL: index value 0.76 and health status 82.5%; HR: 25%; AS: 42%. Group 2: 10 patients: mean preoperative FC: ECOG 0.80, Karnofsky 90%; postoperative: ECOG 1.5, Karnofsky 84%. Mean postoperative QoL: index value 0.68 and health status 74%; HR: 50%; AS: 80%. Complications: 100% of sample. Conclusion: The differences in QoL, FC and complications between LTC and IP in RC patients operated with LAR/ULAR were not significant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37200516PMC10396053W4377094515What 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.