SynthesisBMJ open2024
Association between prophylactic closure of mucosal defect and delayed adverse events after endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the potential of prophylactic closure of mucosal defects to prevent adverse events following endoscopic resection of superficial layers of the gastrointestinal (GI) wall.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library for studies eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis from inception to February 2022. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We compared the effects of closure versus non-closure of mucosal defects with respect to adverse events including delayed bleeding, delayed perforation and postpolypectomy coagulation syndrome (PPCS). We used a random-effects model for all analyses. Subgroup analyses were performed based on gastrointestinal sites, surgical procedures and study designs.
resultsIn total, this study includes 11 383 patients from 28 studies. For delayed bleeding, closure group was associated with a lower incidence (Risk Ratio [RR]: 0.40, 95% Confidence interval [CI]: 0.30 to 0.53, p<0.001; I
conclusionProphylactic closure of mucosal defects is beneficial in reducing the incidence of delayed bleeding and delayed perforation after endoscopic resection, but there is no significant difference in reducing the incidence of PPCS.
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.