Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38557409›Full record

SynthesisBMJ supportive & palliative care2024

Inoperable malignant bowel obstruction: palliative interventions outcomes - mixed-methods systematic review.

Michael Patterson, Sarah Greenley, Yangmyung Ma, Alex Bullock, Jordan Curry, Jacquelyn Smithson, Michael Lind, Miriam J Johnson

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ supportive & palliative care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Michael PattersonWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK michael.patterson@hyms.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9358-1558
Sarah GreenleyInstitute of Clinical and Applied Health Research, Hull York Medical School, Hull, UK.
Yangmyung MaDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Alex BullockWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
Jordan CurryWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
Jacquelyn SmithsonGastrointestinal and Liver services, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, UK.
Michael LindHull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
Miriam J JohnsonWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6204-9158
University of Hull · GBHull York Medical School · GBUniversity Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParenteral nutrition (PN) and palliative venting gastrostomies (PVG) are two interventions used clinically to manage inoperable malignant bowel obstruction (MBO); however, little is known about their role in clinical and quality-of-life outcomes to inform clinical decision making.

aimTo examine the impact of PN and PVG on clinical and quality-of-life outcomes in inoperable MBO.

designA mixed-methods systematic review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched (from inception to 29 April 2021): MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, CINAHL, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Health Technology Assessment and CareSearch for qualitative or quantitative studies of MBO, and PN or PVG. Titles, abstracts and papers were independently screened and quality appraised.

resultsA total of 47 studies representing 3538 participants were included. Current evidence cannot tell us whether these interventions improve MBO survival, but this was a firm belief by patients and clinicians informing their decision. Both interventions appear to allow patients valuable time at home. PVG provides relief from nausea and vomiting. Both interventions improve quality of life but not without significant burdens. Nutritional and performance status may be maintained or improved with PN.

conclusionPN and PVG seem to allow valuable time at home. We found no conclusive evidence to show either intervention prolonged survival, due to the lack of randomised controlled trials that have to date not been performed due to concerns about equipoise. Well-designed studies regarding survival for both interventions are needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020164170.

Indexed as

Intestinal ObstructionPalliative CareQuality of LifeHumansParenteral NutritionGastrointestinal (lower)Gastrointestinal (upper)GenitourinaryIntestinal obstructionQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID38557409
PMCPMC10850628
OpenAlexW4285798809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.