ArticleAnnals of gastroenterological surgery2025
Analysis of the characteristics and management of perforated peptic ulcer from 2011 to 2022: A multicenter and retrospective descriptive study.
Article in Annals of gastroenterological surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between intraoperative irrigation volume and postoperative abdominal abscess in perforated peptic ulcer.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Development of a Scoring System to Predict the Treatment Success for Nonoperative Management of Peptic Ulcer Perforation: A Secondary Data Analysis of PPAP Study.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Article
- Review
- Analysis of the characteristics and management of perforated peptic ulcer from 2011 to 2022: A multicenter and retrospective descriptive study.Annals of gastroenterological 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Although perforated peptic ulcer is common in Japan, few large-scale studies have assessed its management, including surgical procedures and outcomes. This study aimed to survey the characteristics, management, and outcomes of perforated peptic ulcer. Methods: A multicenter retrospective descriptive analysis was conducted across seven centers in Japan between 2011 and 2022. Perforated peptic ulcer was defined as gastric or duodenal ulcer perforation, excluding malignant or iatrogenic perforation. Results: We enrolled 703 patients with perforated peptic ulcer. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 35/703 (5.0%). Conservative treatment was performed as an initial treatment in 217/703 (30.9%) patients, among whom 52 (24.0%) eventually underwent surgery. The median age (interquartile range) of patients who successfully completed the conservative treatment was 60 (46-71) years. A total of 538/703 (76.5%) patients underwent surgery. The gastrectomy percentage increased with the perforation diameter. The anastomotic leakage rate for gastrectomy was high in 10/66 (15.2%) patients. Laparoscopy was performed in 115/538 (21.4%) patients, among whom 23 (20.0%) were converted to open surgery. Patients who underwent laparoscopy had a perforation diameter ≤ 20 mm. The use of laparoscopy varied among facilities, ranging from 1.8% to 61.2%. Conclusion: The in-hospital mortality rate for perforated peptic ulcer in this study was 5.0%, and conservative treatment was safely performed even in elderly patients. As the perforation diameter increased, the rate of gastrectomy tended to rise, and the rate of anastomotic leakage in those patients was high. UMIN Clinical Trials Registry; UMIN000054391.
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.