SynthesisBMJ open2024
Availability of evidence and comparative effectiveness for surgical versus drug interventions: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Temporal trends and treatment patterns in anal fissure management: insights from a multicenter study in Italy.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Article
- Advancements in Surgical Approaches for Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Sinus: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Evidence-Based Surgery: What Can Intra-Operative Images Contribute?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to examine the prevalence of comparisons of surgery to drug regimens, the strength of evidence of such comparisons and whether surgery or the drug intervention was favoured.
designSystematic review of systematic reviews (umbrella review). DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Systematic reviews attempt to compare surgical to drug interventions. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted whether the review found any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for eligible comparisons. Individual trial results were extracted directly from the systematic review. SYNTHESIS: The outcomes of each meta-analysis were resynthesised into random-effects meta-analyses. Egger's test and excess significance were assessed.
resultsOverall, 188 systematic reviews intended to compare surgery versus drugs. Only 41 included data from at least one RCT (total, 165 RCTs) and covered a total of 103 different outcomes of various comparisons of surgery versus drugs. A GRADE assessment was performed by the Cochrane reviewers for 87 (83%) outcomes in the reviews, indicating the strength of evidence was high in 4 outcomes (4%), moderate in 22 (21%), low in 27 (26%) and very low in 33 (32%). Based on 95% CIs, the surgical intervention was favoured in 38/103 (37%), and the drugs were favoured in 13/103 (13%) outcomes. Of the outcomes with high GRADE rating, only one showed conclusive superiority in our reanalysis (sphincterotomy was better than medical therapy for anal fissure). Of the 22 outcomes with moderate GRADE rating, 6 (27%) were inconclusive, 14 (64%) were in favour of surgery and 2 (9%) were in favour of drugs. There was no evidence of excess significance.
conclusionsThough the relative merits of surgical versus drug interventions are important to know for many diseases, high strength randomised evidence is rare. More randomised trials comparing surgery to drug interventions are 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.