Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39487601›Full record

Observational studyHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2024

Timing of Stoma Closure in Neonates: the ToSCiN mixed-methods study.

Nick Lansdale, Kerry Woolfall, Elizabeth Deja, Tracy Mitchell, Graciaa Singhal, Raphael Goldacre, Rema Ramakrishnan, Nigel Hall, Cheryl Battersby, Chris Gale and 7 more

Abstract readObservational StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

17 authors.

Nick LansdaleDepartment of Paediatric and Neonatal Surgery, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0054-9250
Kerry WoolfallDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5726-5304
Elizabeth DejaDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3626-4927
Tracy MitchellDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0014-8016
Graciaa SinghalHull York Medical School, Hull, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6729-5622
Raphael GoldacreUnit of Health Care Epidemiology, Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7393-1880
Rema RamakrishnanNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6784-8319
Nigel HallUniversity Surgery Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8570-9374
Cheryl BattersbyNeonatal Medicine, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2898-553X
Chris GaleNeonatal Medicine, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0707-876X
Gareth PenmanDepartment of Neonatology, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8792-1248
Marian KnightNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1984-4575
Kayleigh StanburyNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8726-2411
Madeleine HurdNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2797-2358
David MurrayNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9010-2905
Louise LinsellNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3205-6511
Pollyanna HardyNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2937-8368

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Neonates undergoing emergency abdominal surgery frequently require a stoma; closing this stoma with a second operation is an essential part of recovery. Timing of closure varies. Optimal timing is unclear and would be best resolved through a randomised controlled trial; such a trial is likely to be challenging. Aim: To determine if it is feasible to conduct a clinical trial comparing 'early' versus 'late' stoma closure in neonates. Design: Mixed methods comprising three parallel workstreams incorporating: a clinician survey, prospective observational cohort study, parent interviews, focus groups, database analyses and consensus meeting. Setting: Specialist neonatal surgical centres across the United Kingdom. Participants and data sources: Neonatologists, neonatal surgeons, neonatal dietitians and neonatal nurses who care for neonates with stomas. Neonates with recent stoma, their parents and the clinicians looking after them. Three existing, overlapping clinical databases. Results: One hundred and sixty-six professionals from all 27 neonatal surgical centres completed the survey: 6 weeks was the most common target time for stoma closure across clinical scenarios, although there was wide variation. Timing of closure was influenced by nutrition, growth and stoma complications. The prospective cohort study enrolled 56 infants from 8 centres. Infants were mostly preterm with necrotising enterocolitis or intestinal perforation. Clinicians identified extreme preterm gestation and clinical conditions as reasons for not randomising babies into a hypothetical trial comparing early and late stoma closure. Parents and healthcare professionals identified that comparator arms needed more clinical flexibility in relation to timing of stoma closure. Analysis of existing databases revealed wide variation in current timing of stoma closure in neonates and identified approximately 300 eligible infants for a trial per annum in the United Kingdom. Conclusions: A trial of 'early' compared to 'late' stoma closure in neonates is feasible and is important to families and health professionals. The population of eligible babies in the United Kingdom is sufficient for such a trial. Challenges centre around lack of equipoise in certain scenarios, specifically: extremely preterm infants; infants waiting too long for stoma closure in the 'late' comparator; and logistical issues in closing a stoma at a trial-allocated time. These challenges are addressable by incorporating flexibility based on gestation at birth, communicating that both trial arms are standard practice and valid treatment options, and providing resources, for example, for operating lists. Future work: We recommend the following population, intervention, comparator and outcome as a starting point to inform future trial design. Population: neonates with stomas (excluding those with a fixed treatment pathway). Intervention: stoma closure at 6 weeks and after 32 weeks post conceptual age. Comparator: expectant management with stoma closure undertaken when the clinical team determines is best for the infant. Primary outcomes: weight gain/growth or length of hospital stay. Study registration: This study is registered as IRAS Project ID 278331, REC Reference 20/LO/1227. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128617) and is published in full in

Indexed as

Surgical StomasFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInfant, NewbornMaleParentsProspective StudiesTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalTime FactorsUnited KingdomENTEROSTOMYFEASIBILITY STUDIESINFANTNECROTISING ENTEROCOLITISNEWBORNSURGICAL STOMAS

Identifiers

PMID39487601
PMCPMC11590118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.