↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation on anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Updates in Surgery, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness of mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation on anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Updates in Surgery, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13304-018-0526-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jobbe P. L. Leenen, Judith E. K. R. Hentzen, Henrietta D. L. Ockhuijsen

Abstract

It has been a standard practice to perform mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) prior to colorectal surgery to reduce the risk of colorectal anastomotic leakages (CAL). The latest Cochrane systematic review suggests there is no benefit for MBP in terms of decreasing CAL, but new studies have been published. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to update current evidence for the effectiveness of preoperative MBP on CAL in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Consequently, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched from 2010 to March 2017 for randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared the effects of MBP in colorectal surgery on anastomotic leakages. The outcome CAL was expressed in odds ratios and analysed with a fixed-effects analysis in a meta-analysis. Quality assessment was performed by the cochrane risk of bias tool and grades of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Eight studies (1065 patients) were included. The pooled odds ratio showed no significant difference of MBP in colorectal surgery on CAL (odds ratio (OR) = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.68-1.94). According to GRADE methodology, the quality of the evidence was low. To conclude, MBP for colorectal surgery does not lower the risk of CAL. These results should, however, be interpreted with caution due to the small sample sizes and poor quality. Moreover, the usefulness of MBP in rectal surgery is not clear due to the lack of stratification in many studies. Future research should focus on high-quality, adequately powered RCTs in elective rectal surgery to determine the possible effects of MBP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 15%
Other 7 15%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Unspecified 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 16 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,591,506
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Updates in Surgery
#458
of 642 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,173
of 332,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Updates in Surgery
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 642 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.