ReviewCureus2023
Efficacy of Biomarkers in Predicting Anastomotic Leakage After Gastrointestinal Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our systematic review and meta-analysis were designed to evaluate the published literature from 2016 to 2019 on which the role of biomarkers in predicting the anastomotic leakage (AL) in gastroesophageal cancer surgery was investigated. This extensive literature search was conducted on the principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol. PubMed, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) were used to gather the relevant information. No restrictions were made on the type of biomarkers. Wald or likelihood ratio (LRT) fixed effect tests were used to estimate the pooled prevalence to generate the proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and model-fitted weights. For analyzing heterogeneity, the Cochran Q test and I square test were used. The Egger regression asymmetry test and funnel plot were used for publication. In this meta-analysis, a total of 15 studies were recruited with 1892 patients undergoing the resection. The pooled elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) was observed as 13.9% ranging from 11.6% to 16.1%. The pooled prevalence of other biomarkers with AL was observed as 4.4%. Significant heterogeneity was observed between studies that reported CRP and other biomarkers (92% each with chi-squared values of 78.80 and 122.78, respectively). However, no significant publication was observed between studies (p=0.61 and p=0.11, respectively). We concluded our study on this note that different biomarkers are involved in the diagnosis of AL. However, all these biomarkers are poor predictors with insufficient predictive value and sensitivity.
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.