Observational studyLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024
Gastric perforation biopsy: is it obsolete?
Observational study 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. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is Intraoperative Biopsy Necessary for Gastric Ulcer Perforation? A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Surgeons' Perspectives on Intraoperative Biopsy in Perforated Gastric Ulcers: A Nationwide Survey from Türkiye.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evidence-based, cost-effective management of perforated peptic ulcer disease: An algorithm of the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Emergency General Surgery Algorithms Working Group.The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2026Article
- One-Stage Versus Two-Stage Gastrectomy for Perforated Gastric Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Two-Stage Gastrectomy Improves Outcomes in Perforated Gastric Cancer: A Single-Institution Retrospective Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Excisional biopsy of perforated gastric ulcer: mandatory or potentially harmful?Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study was to test the established hypothesis that biopsies of spontaneous gastric perforations should be taken to rule out cancer.
methodsA prospective observational study was performed. Consecutive patients with spontaneous gastric perforation were included. Biopsies of the edges of the perforation were submitted for histological evaluation. The epithelial type as well as the nature of the pathology were evaluated.
resultsSixty-eight patients were included. Eight (12%) biopsies revealed duodenal origin. Sixty (88%) biopsies revealed gastric mucosa of which 33 (48%) could be specifically typed. All biopsies revealed benign ulceration. No malignancies were detected in these biopsies or on subsequent gastroscopic follow up.
conclusionThis study suggests that routine intraoperative biopsy of gastric perforation may be questioned. Biopsy is probably better performed endoscopically after recovery.
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.