SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2025
The value of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: an updated meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 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.
- Postoperative anastomotic leakage after colon cancer surgery may reduce long-term survival.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe necessity for bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery (ECS) is still a topic of considerable discussion. The choice to implement mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is part of the preoperative process, yet there are no established standards in the changing landscape of clinical practice. This comprehensive analysis seeks to assess the effectiveness of MBP in ECS, offering valuable insights for informed clinical decision-making.
methodA comprehensive systematic search of English and Chinese databases—including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), VIP Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang—was conducted from inception through March 31, 2025. Only randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane ROB2 tool. The target population comprised adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Prespecified outcomes were intra-abdominal abscess, anastomotic leakage, wound dehiscence, surgical-site infection, and urinary tract infection. Effect estimates were expressed as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals.
resultsA comprehensive analysis was conducted on 18 RCTs, encompassing an aggregate of 5,930 individuals. Within this cohort, 2,982 individuals were assigned to the MBP group, while 2,948 individuals were included in the non-bowel preparation group (non-MBP). Meta-analysis demonstrated no significance in statistics differences among the MBP and the non-MBP cohorts in anastomotic leakage incidence (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.84–1.36, p = 0.60), wound infection incidence (RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.96–1.30, p = 0.16), intra-abdominal abscess incidence (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.53–1.06, p = 0.10), wound dehiscence incidence (RR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.75–2.28, p = 0.34) and urinary tract infection incidence (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.68–1.70, p = 0.75).
conclusionsThe current evidence does not demonstrate a clear benefit of mechanical bowel preparation prior to elective colorectal surgery, and routine use cannot be recommended. No statistically significant differences were observed between MBP and non-MBP groups for anastomotic leakage, surgical-site infection, intra-abdominal abscess, wound dehiscence, or urinary tract infection, and confidence intervals for key outcomes do not exclude the possibility of clinically meaningful harm.
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.