SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2025
Comparing the effectiveness of prophylactic strategies for parastomal hernia prevention: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Risk prediction model for parastomal hernia after colorectal cancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Outcomes of surgical techniques for parastomal hernia repair: a bayesian network meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Pooled it
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
backgroundParastomal hernia (PSH), a common ostomy complication, significantly impairs patient quality of life. Various prophylactic strategies, including surgical (mesh reinforcement) and non-surgical (abdominal wall strengthening exercises, AWSE) interventions, have been proposed, but their comparative effectiveness is unclear. This network meta-analysis primarily assessed PSH incidence.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Searches in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing prophylactic PSH prevention strategies. Data on PSH incidence were extracted. Network meta-analysis estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Effectiveness was determined by PSH incidence reduction, comparing all prophylactic interventions against a transrectal colostomy control group. Interventions were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking curve probabilities.
resultsThe analysis included 73 studies (30 RCTs, 44 observational; 7473 patients). Funnel mesh was the most effective intervention (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05-0.17), followed by Stapled Mesh stomA Reinforcement Technique (SMART) (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.05-0.48) and AWSE (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08-0.39). Subgroup analyses confirmed consistency in findings across study designs but highlighted variability in ileal conduits due to limited data. Heterogeneity was moderate (τ
conclusionsFunnel mesh could be the most effective measure for high-risk patients, while extraperitoneal colostomy (ES) and AWSE may be a practical and scalable alternative. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to validate these findings and refine clinical guidelines for PSH prevention.
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.