SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024
Inadvertent laparoscopic lavage of perforated colon cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis has been grabbing the headlines, it is known that the clinical presentation of peritonitis can also be caused by an underlying perforated carcinoma. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of patients undergoing inadvertent laparoscopic lavage of perforated colon cancer as well as the delay in cancer diagnosis.
methodsThe PubMed database was systematically searched to include all studies meeting inclusion criteria. Studies were screened through titles and abstracts with potentially eligible studies undergoing full-text screening. The primary endpoints of this meta-analysis were the rates of perforated colon cancer patients having undergone inadvertent laparoscopic lavage as well as the delay in cancer diagnosis. This was expressed in pooled rate % and 95% confidence intervals.
resultsEleven studies (three randomized, two prospective, six retrospective) totaling 642 patients met inclusion criteria. Eight studies reported how patients were screened for cancer and the number of patients who completed follow-up. The pooled cancer rate was 3.4% (0.9%, 5.8%) with low heterogeneity (Isquare2 = 34.02%) in eight studies. Cancer rates were 8.2% (0%, 3%) (Isquare2 = 58.2%) and 1.7% (0%, 4.5%) (Isquare2 = 0%) in prospective and retrospective studies, respectively. Randomized trials reported a cancer rate of 7.2% (3.1%, 11.2%) with low among-study heterogeneity (Isquare2 = 0%) and a median delay to diagnosis of 2 (1.5-5) months.
conclusionsThis systematic review found that 7% of patients undergoing laparoscopic lavage for peritonitis had perforated colon cancer with a delay to diagnosis of up to 5 months.
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.