The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
HYPOTHESIS: There is little scientific evidence to support the routine practice of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before elective colorectal surgery in order to minimize the risk of postoperative septic complications. DATA SOURCES: Trials were retrieved using a MEDLINE search followed by a manual search of the bibliographic information in select articles. Languages were restricted to English, French, Spanish, Italian, and German. There was no date restriction. STUDY SELECTION: Only prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating MBP vs no MBP before elective colorectal surgery were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Outcomes evaluated were anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal infection, wound infection, reoperation, and general and extra-abdominal morbidity and mortality rates. Data were extracted by 2 independent observers. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven RCTs were retrieved. The total number of patients in these RCTs was 1297 (642 who had received MBP and 655 who had not). Among all the RCTs reviewed, anastomotic leak was significantly more frequent in the MBP group, 5.6% (36/642), compared with the no-MBP group, 2.8% (18/655) (odds ratio, 1.84; P = .03). Intra-abdominal infection (3.7% for the MBP group vs 2.0% for the no-MBP group), wound infection (7.5% for the MBP group vs 5.5% for the no-MBP group), and reoperation (5.2% for the MBP group vs 2.2% for the no-MBP group) rates were nonstatistically significantly higher in the MBP group. General morbidity and mortality rates were slightly higher in the MBP group. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to support the use of MBP in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Available data tend to suggest that MBP could be harmful with respect to the incidence of anastomotic leak and does not reduce the incidence of septic complications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
White, P. F., Kehlet, H., Neal, J. M., Schricker, T., Carr, D. B., & Carli, F. (2007) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/01.ane.0000263034.96885.e1 · Cited by 485
Khoo, C. K., Vickery, C. J., Forsyth, N., Vinall, N. S., & Eyre-Brook, I. A. (2007) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000259219.08209.36 · Cited by 405
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols: Time to change practice?
Melnyk, M., Casey, R. G., Black, P., & Koupparis, A. J. (2011) · Canadian Urological Association Journal · doi:10.5489/cuaj.11002 · Cited by 384
Gustafsson, U. O., Rockall, T. A., Wexner, S., How, K. Y., Emile, S., Marchuk, A., Fawcett, W. J., Sioson, M., Riedel, B., Chahal, R., et al. (2025) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2025.109397 · Cited by 373
Protective defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma
Gastinger, I., Marusch, F., Steinert, R., Wolff, S., Koeckerling, F., & Lippert, H. (2005) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.5045 · Cited by 360
Metadata
- Authors
- Bucher, P.
- Venue
- Archives of Surgery
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2004-12-01
- Volume
- 139
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1359
- ISSN
- 0004-0010 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1970727518
- Cited by
- 301
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archsurg.139.12.1359
- The paper
- Bucher, P. (2004). Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-analysis. Archives of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.139.12.1359
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.