SynthesisBMC surgery2025
Prevalence and determinants of relaparotomy in East African healthcare institutions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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
backgroundAbdominal re-operation, or relaparotomy, refers to any repeat surgical intervention performed for intra-abdominal or wound complications during the same hospital admission or within 60 days of the initial operation. However, the regional level of relaparotomy remains unknown in East Africa. Hence, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the prevalence of relaparotomy and its associated factors in East Africa.
methodsStudies were accessed through an electronic web-based search strategy from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL by using a combination of search terms. The quality of each included article was assessed using criteria adapted from the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI). All statistical analyses were done using STATA version 17 software for windows, and meta-analysis was carried out using a random-effects method. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed for reporting results.
resultsThe overall prevalence of relaparotomy was determined to be 17.36% (95% CI: 7.03-27.68; I² = 99.89%). Patients OR latency of > 60 h was 2.33 times more likely to undergo re-laparotomy compared with patients operated in < 60 h (AOR = 2.33 (95%CI [1.22-3.45)). Patients with anastomotic leak were 2 times more likely to undergo re-laparotomy compared to patients without leak (AOR = 2 (95%CI [1.35-2.64)). Older patients were 4.13 times more likely to undergo re-laparotomy compared to young patients (AOR = 4.13 (95%CI [-4.62-12.89)).
conclusionThis meta-analysis provides valuable insights into the prevalence and associated factors of relaparotomy, highlighting key regional variations and patient characteristics. The study identified several factors influencing the prevalence of relaparotomy, including the duration of illness, low systolic blood pressure, anastomotic leaks, delayed surgical intervention, and age.
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.