ReviewCureus2023
Single-Layer or Double-Layer Intestinal Anastomosis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Single-layer vs Double-layer Intestinal Anastomosis: A Prospective Comparative Study.Euroasian journal of hepato-gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several malignant and benign indications may necessitate bowel resection. Despite the emergence of newer techniques, the hand-sewn technique remains popular for the reestablishment of intestinal continuity after resection. This method can achieve anastomosis in one or two layers. Some studies have suggested that the single-layer technique has several potential benefits compared to its rivals while simultaneously maintaining a comparable efficacy and safety profile. Previous reviews have failed to recommend either of these methods over the other due to a lack of high-quality evidence. This review aims to establish which technique provides the best outcomes by reviewing recent relevant trials and comparing both methods. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. A database search of PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) ultimately returned nine randomized trials published between 2003 and 2023 comparing single-layer intestinal anastomosis (SLIA) and double-layer intestinal anastomosis (DLIA) that fit the inclusion criteria. Overall, results show a dearth of robust trials, and the included studies displayed variable eligibility criteria and materials used for anastomosis. The available evidence, however, does suggest that neither technique is inferior in terms of preventing post-operative complications, but SLIA is less expensive and quicker to perform. The evidence is, however, limited, and further high-quality research is needed.
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.