ArticleBJS open2025
Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer: systematic scoping review and in-depth evaluation of existing evidence.
Article in BJS open, 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.
- Perioperative Outcomes of No-Drain Strategy in Primary Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Best of upper gastrointestinal surgery in 2025.BJS open · 2026Article
- Review of Peptic Ulcer Disease: Insights from Pathophysiology, Mechanisms, Pharmacotherapy, Phytotherapy, and Case Reports.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPerforated peptic ulcer remains a common contributor to morbidity and mortality rates worldwide. In common with other emergency surgery conditions, there is a trend towards minimally invasive surgery. This review aims to describe current evidence comparing open and laparoscopic management strategies for perforated peptic ulcers, by summarizing patients, intervention, comparator, outcomes, describing intervention components and delivery, outcomes reported and assessing study pragmatism (applicability) using PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2.
methodsSystematic searches of published literature were performed using Ovid MEDLINE and Embase online databases, as well as clinical trial databases. Randomized trials comparing laparoscopic and open repair of peptic ulcer were included. Data extracted included study metadata, patients, intervention, comparator, outcomes elements, technical aspects of interventions and use of co-interventions, and surgeon learning curves/experience. Applicability was assessed using the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 tool, to explore whether trials were predominantly pragmatic or explanatory, and study validity assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool.
resultsA total of 408 studies were screened for eligibility, with nine finally included (880 patients). Incision, ulcer closure details and lavage were the most frequently reported aspects of laparoscopic repair. Co-interventions such as antibiotic use and analgesia were reported in most articles, whilst nutrition and Helicobacter pylori eradication were not reported. Interventions were generally delivered by high-volume laparoscopic surgeons. Studies were considered at high Risk-of-Bias. PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 assessment found studies were neither fully pragmatic nor explanatory.
conclusionLaparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is a variably defined intervention. Consideration of how intervention components and co-interventions should be optimally delivered is required to facilitate a well designed randomized trial.
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.