ArticlePediatric surgery international2026
Comment on "Absorbable versus non-absorbable suture in percutaneous laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis".
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Shi et al. report a pooled odds ratio of 0.03, 95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.15, for suture knot reaction, which they read as a significantly lower risk in the absorbable suture group in percutaneous laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in children. Recomputing that estimate from the counts printed in the review's own forest plots reproduces both the published odds ratio and the 67.2% weight carried by the study that contributes most of it. It also shows that this study enters Figs. 3 and 4 with its two groups exchanged. The source article ties each denominator to a specific group. One of the two assignments makes the absorbable column of Fig. 3 exceed the absorbable total the review states for itself, and the other does not. Applying the assignment used in Fig. 4 returns 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 3.67; setting the study aside returns 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.007 to 0.50. This Comment asks the authors to confirm the group assignment and, if it is transposed, to publish a corrected estimate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42645579What 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.