ReviewJournal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons
Can Neonatal Pull-through Replace Staged Pull-through for the Management of Anorectal Malformation? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Follow-up of defecation, urination, growth and development in children with Currarino syndrome.Translational pediatrics · 2026Article
- Can Neonatal Pull-through Replace Staged Pull-through for the Management of Anorectal Malformation? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric SurgeonsReview
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
Anorectal malformations (ARMs) are managed classically in three stages - colostomy at birth, anorectal pull-through after 2-3 months, and stoma closure. Single-stage pull-through has been contemplated in neonatal age aimed to reduce the number of procedures, better long-term continence, the better psycho-social status of the child, and reduced cost of treatment, especially in resource-strained countries. We conducted a systematic review comparing neonatal single-stage pull-through with stage pull-through and did a meta-analysis for the outcome and complications. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were followed. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched and RevMan 5.4.1 was used for the meta-analysis. Fourteen comparative studies including one randomized controlled trial were included in the systematic review for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis included 1845 patients including 866 neonates undergoing single-stage pull-through. There was no statistically significant difference for the occurrence of surgical site infection (odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24-2.83), urinary tract injury (OR 1.82, 95% CI: 0.85-3.89), rectal prolapse (OR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.21-5.04), anal stenosis/stricture, voluntary bowel movements (OR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.25-3.73), constipation (OR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.61-1.67), soiling (OR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.52-1.51), mortality (OR 1.19, 95% CI: 0.04-39.74), or other complications. However, continence was seen to be better among patients undergoing neonatal pull-through (OR 1.63, 95% CI: 1.12-2.38). Thus, we can recommend single-stage pull-through for managing patients with ARMs in the neonatal age.
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.