↓ Skip to main content

Medical versus surgical treatment for refractory or recurrent peptic ulcer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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
Medical versus surgical treatment for refractory or recurrent peptic ulcer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011523.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Elena Pallari

Abstract

Refractory peptic ulcers are ulcers in the stomach or duodenum that do not heal after eight to 12 weeks of medical treatment or those that are associated with complications despite medical treatment. Recurrent peptic ulcers are peptic ulcers that recur after healing of the ulcer. Given the number of deaths due to peptic ulcer-related complications and the long-term complications of medical treatment (increased incidence of fracture), it is unclear whether medical or surgical intervention is the better treatment option in people with recurrent or refractory peptic ulcers. To assess the benefits and harms of medical versus surgical treatment for people with recurrent or refractory peptic ulcer. We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Upper GI and Pancreatic Diseases group, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers until September 2015 to identify randomised trials and non-randomised studies, using search strategies. We also searched the references of included studies to identify further studies. We considered randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies comparing medical treatment with surgical treatment in people with refractory or recurrent peptic ulcer, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review. Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We planned to calculate the risk ratio, mean difference, standardised mean difference, or hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with Review Manager 5 based on intention-to-treat analysis. We included only one non-randomised study published 30 years ago in the review. This study included 77 participants who had gastric ulcer and in whom medical therapy (histamine H2 receptor blockers, antacids, and diet) had failed after an average duration of treatment of 29 months. The authors do not state whether these were recurrent or refractory ulcers. It appears that the participants did not have previous complications such as bleeding or perforation. Of the 77 included participants, 37 participants continued to have medical therapy while 40 participants received surgical therapy (antrectomy with or without vagotomy; subtotal gastrectomy with or without vagotomy; vagotomy; pyloroplasty and suture of the ulcer; suture or closure of ulcer without vagotomy or excision of the ulcer; proximal gastric or parietal cell vagotomy alone; suture or closure of the ulcer with proximal gastric or parietal cell vagotomy). Whether to use medical or surgical treatment was determined by participant's or treating physician's preference.The study authors reported that two participants in the medical treatment group (2 out of 37; 5.4%) had gastric cancer, which was identified by repeated biopsy. They did not report the proportion of participants who had gastric cancer in the surgical treatment group. They also did not report the implications of the delayed diagnosis of gastric cancer in the medical treatment group. They did not report any other outcomes of interest for this review (that is health-related quality of life (using any validated scale), adverse events and serious adverse events, peptic ulcer bleeding, peptic ulcer perforation, abdominal pain, and long-term mortality). We found no studies that provide the relative benefits and harms of medical versus surgical treatment for recurrent or refractory peptic ulcers. Studies that evaluate the natural history of recurrent and refractory peptic ulcers are urgently required to determine whether randomised controlled trials comparing medical versus surgical management in patients with recurrent or refractory peptic ulcers or both are necessary. Such studies will also provide information for the design of such randomised controlled trials. A minimum follow-up of two to three years will allow the calculation of the incidence of complications and gastric cancer (in gastric ulcers only) in recurrent and refractory peptic ulcers. In addition to complications related to treatment and disease, health-related quality of life and loss of productivity should also be measured.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 23%
Student > Bachelor 18 14%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Other 26 21%
Unknown 14 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Psychology 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 20 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 10 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,982,068
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,397
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,951
of 265,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#109
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 265,352 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.