SynthesisAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2025
Laparoscopic versus open repair for peptic ulcer perforation: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials. Time to conclude!
Synthesis in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Approaches for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Comparison of trans-umbilical single-port laparoscopic surgery and laparotomy for repair of perforated peptic ulcer in pediatric patients: a retrospective study.BMC surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to investigate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic and open repair for peptic ulcer perforation (PUP).
methodsA PRISMA-compliant systematic review with a PROSPERO-registered protocol (registration number CRD42024529286) was conducted. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving PUP patients managed by laparoscopic or open repair were identified and their risk of bias assessed. Outcome syntheses for perioperative mortality and morbidities, need for reoperation, procedure time and length of hospital stay were conducted using random-effects modelling to calculate risk ratios (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
findingsNine RCTs met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 670 patients of whom 317 were randomised to receive laparoscopic surgery and 353 were managed with open surgery. Laparoscopic repair of PUP significantly reduced mortality (RR 0.37,
conclusionsLaparoscopic repair of PUP is associated with significantly lower mortality and morbidity and shorter length of stay compared with the open approach. The laparoscopic approach should be the management of choice subject to the existence of laparoscopic expertise.
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.