SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2025
Laparoscopic suture repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease: a meta-review and trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: The number of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses in surgery is growing exponentially. Meta-epidemiology, as a form of evidence synthesis, allows for the pooling of data and assessment of the diversity present in multiple and overlapping SRs. Aim of the research: This study aimed to summarize evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials and reanalyze outcome data on laparoscopic suture repair of perforated peptic ulcers using trial sequential analysis (TSA). Materials and methods: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, eLibrary, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched before 1 June 2024. A meta-epidemiological approach and TSA were used. Results: In total, 16 relevant Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs that addressed laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcers (PPUs) were identified and critically appraised. Three overlapping reviews of RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Their pooled results showed a lower postoperative pain score after laparoscopic repair compared with open closure on postoperative day 1 as the only significant outcome. There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes. The re-analyses of meta-analytic findings and adjustments of sample size by TSA confirmed that laparoscopic repair was associated with less postoperative pain [100% of the diversity-adjusted required information size (DARIS) was reached]. The calculated DARIS for operative time and hospital stay were 40.1% and 14.6%, respectively, and the TSA showed neither significant benefit nor harm of laparoscopic surgery in the attained information size in the meta-analysis. Further trials with regard to mortality, surgical site infection, and intra-abdominal abscess are not very promising because the DARIS did not exceed 5% after combining the results of eight RCTs. Conclusion: Summarization of evidence from systematic reviews and reanalysis using TSA confirmed sufficient evidence for only one outcome, namely, that laparoscopic suture repair of PPUs is accompanied by lower pain scores at 24-72 h. Regarding the issues of postoperative complications and mortality, achieving DARIS through additional studies seems unpromising.
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.