Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41368952›Full record

SynthesisColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2025

Management of anastomotic leak after elective anterior resection for rectal cancer: A systematic review and pooled analysis.

Ruth Walsh, Edward Murphy, Éanna J Ryan, Ronan A Cahill

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Management of anastomotic leak after elective anterior resection for rectal cancer: A systematic review and pooled analysis.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ruth WalshUCD Centre for Precision Surgery, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4750-4604
Edward MurphyUCD Centre for Precision Surgery, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Éanna J RyanDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Ronan A CahillUCD Centre for Precision Surgery, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnastomotic leak (AL) following rectal cancer resection significantly increases the clinical care, risks morbidity and mortality and impairs oncological outcomes. AL management is not standardised. This systematic review and pooled analysis evaluated the comparative efficacy of the various reported strategies.

methodAfter protocol generation with AMSTAR2, a systematic search was conducted in EMBASE, PubMed and SCOPUS. Primary and secondary outcome measures were pooled using the DerSimonian-Laird method with 95% confidence intervals, I

resultsSixteen studies published between 2010 and 2024 comprising 7236 patients, 850 with AL, met eligibility criteria albeit with significant heterogeneity (I

conclusionDrainage techniques demonstrate high success with low mortality and further intervention rate albeit with lengthened hospital stay. Surgical approaches also achieve success although mortality and long-term stoma rates are higher. Future studies need a core outcome set.

Indexed as

Anastomotic LeakDrainageElective Surgical ProceduresProctectomyRectal NeoplasmsAnastomosis, SurgicalConservative TreatmentFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeAnastomotic leaklong‐term stomapelvic sepsispostoperative morbidityRectal cancersystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41368952
PMCPMC12690630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.