ReviewUpdates in surgery2024
Comparing the short-term clinical outcomes and therapeutic effects of different colectomies in patients with refractory slow-transit constipation in eastern countries: a network meta-analysis.
Review in Updates in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic-assisted subtotal colectomy cecal-rectal anastomosis for redundant colon-associated slow-transit constipation: a single-center retrospective case series with long-term follow-up.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Stereoscopic Quantitative Analysis of Enteric Nervous System in Patients With Slow Transit Constipation.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2025Article
- Pathophysiological mechanisms, diagnostic innovations, and multimodal therapeutic strategies for slow transit constipation.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Article
- Slow Transit Constipation: Pathophysiological Perspectives and Management Updates.Journal of digestive diseasesReview
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
Abstract
Surgical treatment has been widely used in patients with refractory slow transit constipation (RSTC). The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the effects of different colectomies on short-term postoperative complications and quality of life in patients with RSTC. Electronic literature searches were performed in the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, WANFANG DATA, and Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials databases and were searched up to December 2022. Selected to compare the short-term clinical outcomes and quality of life of the treatment of RSTC. A random-effects Bayesian NMA was conducted to assess and rank the effectiveness of different surgical modalities. This study included a total of six non-randomized controlled trials involving 336 subjects. It was found that subtotal colectomy with cecorectal anastomosis (CRA) demonstrated superior effectiveness in several aspects, including reduced hospital stay (MD 0.06; 95% CI [0.02, 1.96]), shorter operative time (MD 4.75; 95% CI [0.28, 14.07]), lower constipation index (MD 0.61; 95% CI [0.04, 1.71]), improved quality of life (MD 4.42; 95% CI [0.48, 4.42]). Additionally, in terms of short-term clinical outcomes, subtotal colectomy with ileosigmoidal anastomosis (SC-ISA) procedure ranked the highest in reducing small bowel obstruction (OR 0.24; 95% CI [0.02, 0.49]), alleviating abdominal pain (OR 0.53; 95% CI [0.05, 1.14]), minimizing abdominal distension (OR 0.33; 95% CI [0.02, 0.65]), and reducing incision infection rates (OR 0.17; 95% CI [0.01, 0.33]). Furthermore, SC-ISA ranked as the best approach in terms of patient satisfaction (OR 0.66; 95% CI [0.02, 1.46]). Based on our research findings, we recommend that CRA be considered as the preferred treatment approach for patients diagnosed with RSTC.
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.