SynthesisIrish journal of medical science2024
Evaluating the safety profile of anti-platelet therapy in patients undergoing elective inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Irish journal of medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere remains no consensus surrounding the safety of prescribing anti-platelet therapies (APT) prior to elective inguinal hernia repair (IHR).
aimsTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the safety profile of APT use in patients indicated to undergo elective IHR.
methodsA systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analyses were performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method using the Review Manager version 5.4 software.
resultsFive studies including outcomes in 344 patients were included. Of these, 65.4% had APT discontinued (225/344), and 34.6% had APT continued (119/344). The majority of included patients were male (94.1%, 288/344). When continuing or discontinuing APT, there was no significant difference in overall haemorrhage rates (odds ratio (OR): 1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29-11.78, P = 0.130) and in sensitivity analysis using only RCT data (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.03-12.41, P = 0.760). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in reoperation rates (OR: 6.27, 95% CI: 0.72-54.60, P = 0.590); however, a significant difference was observed for readmission rates (OR: 5.67, 95% CI: 1.33-24.12, P = 0.020) when APT was continued or stopped pre-operatively. There was no significant difference in the estimated blood loss, intra-operative time, transfusion of blood products, rates of complications, cerebrovascular accidents, myocardial infarctions, or mortality observed.
conclusionThis study illustrates the safety of continuing APT pre-operatively in patients undergoing elective IHR, with similar rates of haemorrhage, reoperation, and readmission observed. Clinical trials with larger patient recruitment will be required to fully establish the safety profile of prescribing APT in the pre-operative setting prior to elective IHR.
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.