↓ Skip to main content

Daikenchuto for reducing postoperative ileus in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
55 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
4 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
Daikenchuto for reducing postoperative ileus in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012271.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nobuaki Hoshino, Toshihiko Takada, Koya Hida, Suguru Hasegawa, Toshi A Furukawa, Yoshiharu Sakai

Abstract

Postoperative ileus is a major complication for persons undergoing abdominal surgery. Daikenchuto, a Japanese traditional medicine (Kampo), is a drug that may reduce postoperative ileus. To assess the efficacy and safety of Daikenchuto for reducing prolonged postoperative ileus in persons undergoing elective abdominal surgery. We searched the following databases on 3 July 2017: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ICHUSHI, WHO (World Health Organization) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), EU Crinical Trials registry (EU-CTR), UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR), ClinicalTrials.gov, The Japan Society for Oriental Medicine (JSOM), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endscopic Surgeons (SAGES). We set no limitations on language or date of publication. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Daikenchuto with any control condition in adults, 18 years of age or older, undergoing elective abdominal surgery. We applied standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently reviewed the articles identified by literature searches, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of the included studies using the Cochrane software Review Manager 5. We included seven RCTs with a total of 1202 participants. Overall, we judged the risk of bias as low in four studies and high in three studies. We are uncertain whether Daikenchuto reduced time to first flatus (mean difference (MD) -11.32 hours, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.45 to -5.19; two RCTs, 83 participants; very low-quality evidence), or time to first bowel movement (MD -9.44 hours, 95% CI -22.22 to 3.35; four RCTs, 500 participants; very low-quality evidence) following surgery. There was little or no difference in time to resumption of regular solid food following surgery (MD 3.64 hours, 95% CI -24.45 to 31.74; two RCTs, 258 participants; low-quality evidence). There were no adverse events in either arm of the five RCTs that reported on drug-related adverse events (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02, 568 participants, low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of Daikenchuto on patient satisfaction (MD 0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.37; one RCT, 81 participants; very low-quality of evidence). There was little or no difference in the incidence of any re-interventions for postoperative ileus before leaving hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.62; one RCT, 207 participants; moderate-quality evidence), or length of hospital stay (MD -0.49 days, 95% CI -1.21 to 0.22; three RCTs, 292 participants; low-quality evidence). Evidence from current literature was unclear whether Daikenchuto reduced postoperative ileus in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery, due to the small number of participants in the meta-analyses. Very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain whether Daikenchuto improved postoperative flatus or bowel movement. Further well-designed and adequately powered studies are needed to assess the efficacy of Daikenchuto.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 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 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 1 25%
Student > Bachelor 1 25%
Other 1 25%
Researcher 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 75%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 28 May 2018.
All research outputs
#348,404
of 11,275,925 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,220
of 9,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,733
of 240,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#20
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,275,925 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,058 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
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 240,342 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.