Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38503410›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Approaches for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials - study protocol.

Elisabeth Wadewitz, Juliane Friedrichs, Maurizio Grilli, Johannes Vey, Samuel Zimmermann, Joerg Kleeff, Ulrich Ronellenfitsch, Johannes Klose, Artur Rebelo

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Elisabeth WadewitzUniversity Hospital Halle (Saale), Germany, Department of Visceral, Vascular and Endocrine Surgery, Martin Luther University Halle Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
Juliane FriedrichsDepartment of Visceral, Vascular and Endocrine Surgery, Martin Luther University of Halle Wittenberg Faculty of Medicine, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8653-3948
Maurizio GrilliLibrary of the Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, German, Heidelberg University Medical Faculty Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Johannes VeyInstitute of Medical Biometry, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Samuel ZimmermannInstitute of Medical Biometry, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Joerg KleeffUniversity Hospital Halle (Saale), Germany, Department of Visceral, Vascular and Endocrine Surgery, Martin Luther University Halle Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
Ulrich RonellenfitschDepartment of Visceral, Vascular and Endocrine Surgery, Martin Luther University Halle Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1107-813X
Johannes KloseUniversity Hospital Halle (Saale), Germany, Department of Visceral, Vascular and Endocrine Surgery, Martin Luther University Halle Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
Artur RebeloUniversitätsklinikum Halle, Halle, Germany artur.rebelo@uk-halle.de.ORCID 0000-0002-5267-079X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPerforated peptic ulcers are a life-threatening complication associated with high morbidity and mortality. Several treatment approaches are available. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare surgical and alternative approaches for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers regarding mortality and other patient-relevant outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov trial registry and ICTRP will be conducted with predefined search terms.To address the question of the most effective treatment approach, an NMA will be performed for each of the outcomes mentioned above. A closed network of interventions is expected. The standardised mean difference with its 95% CI will be used as the effect measure for the continuous outcomes, and the ORs with 95% CI will be calculated for the binary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: In accordance with the nature of the data used in this meta-analysis, which involves aggregate information from previously published studies ethical approval is deemed unnecessary. Results will be disseminated directly to decision-makers (eg, surgeons, gastroenterologists) through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023482932.

Indexed as

Peptic Ulcer PerforationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHumansNetwork Meta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicGastrointestinal tumoursMeta-Analysis

Identifiers

PMID38503410
PMCPMC10953088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.