结直肠癌试验中吻合口漏的报告质量:系统回顾

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-07 DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000003475
Danique J I Heuvelings, Omar Mollema, Sander M J van Kuijk, Merel L Kimman, Marylise Boutros, Nader Francis, Nicole D Bouvy, Patricia Sylla
{"title":"结直肠癌试验中吻合口漏的报告质量:系统回顾","authors":"Danique J I Heuvelings, Omar Mollema, Sander M J van Kuijk, Merel L Kimman, Marylise Boutros, Nader Francis, Nicole D Bouvy, Patricia Sylla","doi":"10.1097/DCR.0000000000003475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although attempts have been made in the past to establish consensus regarding the definitions and grading of the severity of colorectal anastomotic leakage, widespread adoption has remained limited.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>A systematic review of the literature was conducted to examine the various elements used to report and define anastomotic leakage in colorectal cancer resections.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library Database.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>All published randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses containing data related to adult patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery and reporting anastomotic leakage as a primary or secondary outcome, with a definition of anastomotic leakage were included.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Definitions of anastomotic leakage, clinical symptoms, radiological modalities and findings, findings at reoperation, and grading terminology or classifications for anastomotic leakage.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 471 articles reporting anastomotic leakage as a primary or secondary outcome, a definition was reported in 95 studies (45 randomized controlled trials, 13 systematic reviews, and 37 meta-analyses) involving a total of 346,140 patients. Of these 95 articles, 68% reported clinical signs and symptoms of anastomotic leakage, 26% biochemical criteria, 63% radiological modalities, 62% radiological findings, and 13% findings at reintervention. Only 45% (n = 43) of included studies reported grading of anastomotic leakage severity or leak classification, and 41% (n = 39) included a time frame for reporting.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>There was a high level of heterogeneity between the included studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This evidence synthesis confirmed incomplete and inconsistent reporting of anastomotic leakage across the published colorectal cancer literature. There is a great need to develop and implement a consensus framework for defining, grading, and reporting anastomotic leakage.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Prospectively registered at PROSPERO (ID 454660).</p>","PeriodicalId":11299,"journal":{"name":"Diseases of the Colon & Rectum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11477855/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality of Reporting on Anastomotic Leaks in Colorectal Cancer Trials: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Danique J I Heuvelings, Omar Mollema, Sander M J van Kuijk, Merel L Kimman, Marylise Boutros, Nader Francis, Nicole D Bouvy, Patricia Sylla\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/DCR.0000000000003475\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although attempts have been made in the past to establish consensus regarding the definitions and grading of the severity of colorectal anastomotic leakage, widespread adoption has remained limited.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>A systematic review of the literature was conducted to examine the various elements used to report and define anastomotic leakage in colorectal cancer resections.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library Database.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>All published randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses containing data related to adult patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery and reporting anastomotic leakage as a primary or secondary outcome, with a definition of anastomotic leakage were included.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Definitions of anastomotic leakage, clinical symptoms, radiological modalities and findings, findings at reoperation, and grading terminology or classifications for anastomotic leakage.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 471 articles reporting anastomotic leakage as a primary or secondary outcome, a definition was reported in 95 studies (45 randomized controlled trials, 13 systematic reviews, and 37 meta-analyses) involving a total of 346,140 patients. Of these 95 articles, 68% reported clinical signs and symptoms of anastomotic leakage, 26% biochemical criteria, 63% radiological modalities, 62% radiological findings, and 13% findings at reintervention. Only 45% (n = 43) of included studies reported grading of anastomotic leakage severity or leak classification, and 41% (n = 39) included a time frame for reporting.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>There was a high level of heterogeneity between the included studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This evidence synthesis confirmed incomplete and inconsistent reporting of anastomotic leakage across the published colorectal cancer literature. There is a great need to develop and implement a consensus framework for defining, grading, and reporting anastomotic leakage.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Prospectively registered at PROSPERO (ID 454660).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11299,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diseases of the Colon & Rectum\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11477855/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diseases of the Colon & Rectum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000003475\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diseases of the Colon & Rectum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000003475","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管过去曾尝试就结肠直肠吻合口漏的定义和严重程度分级达成共识,但广泛采用的程度仍然有限:目的:我们对文献进行了系统性回顾,旨在研究用于报告和定义结直肠癌切除术中吻合口漏的各种要素:利用 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane Library 数据库对所有已发表的随机对照试验、系统综述和荟萃分析进行了系统综述,其中包含与接受结直肠癌手术的成年患者相关的数据,并将吻合口漏作为主要或次要结果进行了报告,同时纳入了吻合口漏的定义:结果:吻合口漏的定义、临床症状、放射学检查方式和结果、再次手术的结果以及吻合口漏的分级术语或分类:在 471 篇报道吻合口漏为主要或次要结果的文章中,有 95 项研究(45 项随机对照试验、13 项系统综述和 37 项荟萃分析)报告了吻合口漏的定义,共涉及 346140 名患者。在这 95 篇文章中,68% 的文章报告了吻合口漏的临床症状和体征,26% 的文章报告了生化标准,63% 的文章报告了放射学模式,62% 的文章报告了放射学结果,13% 的文章报告了再介入时的结果。在纳入的研究中,只有45%(n = 43)的研究报告了吻合口漏严重程度分级或漏分类,41%(n = 39)的研究报告了报告时限:局限性:纳入的研究之间存在高度异质性:本证据综述证实,在已发表的结直肠癌文献中,关于吻合口渗漏的报告不完整且不一致。亟需制定并实施一个共识框架来定义、分级和报告吻合口漏:前瞻性注册:PROSPERO ID 454660。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quality of Reporting on Anastomotic Leaks in Colorectal Cancer Trials: A Systematic Review.

Background: Although attempts have been made in the past to establish consensus regarding the definitions and grading of the severity of colorectal anastomotic leakage, widespread adoption has remained limited.

Objective: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to examine the various elements used to report and define anastomotic leakage in colorectal cancer resections.

Data sources: A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library Database.

Study selection: All published randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses containing data related to adult patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery and reporting anastomotic leakage as a primary or secondary outcome, with a definition of anastomotic leakage were included.

Main outcome measures: Definitions of anastomotic leakage, clinical symptoms, radiological modalities and findings, findings at reoperation, and grading terminology or classifications for anastomotic leakage.

Results: Of the 471 articles reporting anastomotic leakage as a primary or secondary outcome, a definition was reported in 95 studies (45 randomized controlled trials, 13 systematic reviews, and 37 meta-analyses) involving a total of 346,140 patients. Of these 95 articles, 68% reported clinical signs and symptoms of anastomotic leakage, 26% biochemical criteria, 63% radiological modalities, 62% radiological findings, and 13% findings at reintervention. Only 45% (n = 43) of included studies reported grading of anastomotic leakage severity or leak classification, and 41% (n = 39) included a time frame for reporting.

Limitations: There was a high level of heterogeneity between the included studies.

Conclusions: This evidence synthesis confirmed incomplete and inconsistent reporting of anastomotic leakage across the published colorectal cancer literature. There is a great need to develop and implement a consensus framework for defining, grading, and reporting anastomotic leakage.

Registration: Prospectively registered at PROSPERO (ID 454660).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
572
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Diseases of the Colon & Rectum (DCR) is the official journal of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) dedicated to advancing the knowledge of intestinal disorders by providing a forum for communication amongst their members. The journal features timely editorials, original contributions and technical notes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信