↓ Skip to main content

Oral water soluble contrast for malignant bowel obstruction

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Oral water soluble contrast for malignant bowel obstruction
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012014.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

William Syrmis, Russell Richard, Sue Jenkins-Marsh, Siew C Chia, Phillip Good

Abstract

Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a common problem in patients with intra-abdominal cancer. Oral water soluble contrast (OWSC) has been shown to be useful in the management of adhesive small bowel obstruction in identifying patients who will recover with conservative management alone and also in reducing the length of hospital stay. It is not clear whether the benefits of OWSC in adhesive small bowel obstruction are also seen in patients with MBO. To determine the reliability of OWSC media and follow-up abdominal radiographs in predicting the success of conservative treatment in resolving inoperable MBO with conservative management.To determine the efficacy and safety of OWSC media in reducing the duration of obstruction and reducing hospital stay in people with MBO. We identified studies from searching Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and MEDLINE in Process, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index (Web of Science) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science). We also searched registries of clinical trials and the CareSearch Grey Literature database. The date of the search was the 6 June 2017. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or prospective controlled studies, that evaluated the diagnostic potential of OWSC in predicting which malignant bowel obstructions will resolve with conservative treatment.RCTs, or prospective controlled studies, that assessed the therapeutic potential of OWSC in managing MBO at any level compared with placebo, no intervention or usual treatment or supportive care. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. We found only one RCT meeting the selection criteria for the second objective (therapeutic potential) of this review. This study recruited nine participants. It compared the use of gastrografin versus placebo in adult patients with MBO with no indication for further intervention (surgery, endoscopy) apart from standardised conservative management.The overall risk of bias for the study was high due to issues with low numbers of participants, selective reporting of outcomes and a high attrition rate for the intervention arm.Primary outcomesThe included trial was a pilot study whose primary outcome was to test the feasibility for a large study. The authors reported specifically on the number of patients screened, the number recruited and reasons for exclusion; this was not the focus of our review.Due to the low number of participants, the authors of the study decided not to report on our primary outcome of assessing the ability of OWSC to predict the likelihood of malignant small bowel obstruction resolving with conservative treatment alone (diagnostic effect). It also did not report on our primary outcome of rate of resolution of MBO in patients receiving OWSC compared with those not receiving it (therapeutic effect).The study reported that no issues regarding safety or tolerability of either gastrografin or placebo were identified. The overall quality of the evidence for the incidence of adverse events with OWSC was very low, downgraded twice for serious limitations to study quality (high risk of selective reporting and attrition bias) and downgraded once for imprecision (sparse data).Secondary outcomesThe study planned to report on this review's secondary outcome measures of length of hospital stay and time from administration of OWSC to resolution of MBO. However the authors of the study decided not to do so due to the low numbers of patients recruited. The study did not report on our secondary outcome measure of survival times from onset of inoperable MBO until death. There is insufficient evidence from RCTs to determine the place of OWSC in predicting which patients with inoperable MBO will respond with conservative treatment alone. There is also insufficient evidence from RCTs to determine the therapeutic effects and safety of OWSC in patients with malignant small bowel obstruction.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 17%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Other 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 20 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 24 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,645,868
of 13,160,482 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,610
of 10,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,321
of 271,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#160
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,160,482 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,501 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 271,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.