ReviewVeterinary evidence
Comparative efficacy of gambee and single interrupted suture patterns in reducing complications after canine enterotomy.
Review in Veterinary evidence. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PICO question: In dogs undergoing enterotomy does using a Gambee suture pattern instead of a single interrupted suture pattern to close the intestinal incision reduce the risk of postoperative complications? Clinical bottom line: Category of research: Treatment. Number and type of study designs reviewed: Three papers addressed the PICO question and matched the search terms. All were experimental clinical trials. One study was a controlled but non-randomised trial, another was a non-controlled, non-randomised clinical trial, and the third was a randomised but non-controlled clinical trial. Strength of evidence: Weak. Outcomes reported: The first study suggested that the simple interrupted technique was easier, faster, and safer, with a significantly lower stenotic index at the anastomotic site and with relatively lower adhesion formation and rapid gain in tensile strength than the Gambee method. The second study found the risk of postoperative complications after enterotomy in dogs was no different whether Gambee or simple-interrupted sutures were used. The third study showed that the time for closure was significantly less for the simple interrupted suture group compared to the Gambee suture group. Despite this, the mean initial and maximum leak pressure values in the Gambee group were higher. Conclusion: The study design of those papers is considered poor and the strength of evidence weak in support of the PICO question. For now, the decision between Gambee and single interrupted suture for intestinal closure depends on the vet surgeon's choice. Future studies should be designed more efficiently before recommending a specific technique in clinical practice.
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.