The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair
Abstract
Background: The aim was to conduct a meta-analysis of the randomized evidence to determine the relative merits of laparoscopic (LIHR) and open (OIHR) inguinal hernia repair. Methods: A search of the Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents and PubMed databases identified all randomized clinical trials that compared OIHR and LIHR and were published in the English language between January 1990 and the end of October 2000. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) statement. The six outcome variables analysed were operating time, time to discharge from hospital, return to normal activity and return to work, postoperative complications and recurrence rate. Random effects meta-analyses were performed using odds ratios and weighted mean differences. Results: Twenty-nine trials were considered suitable for meta-analysis. Some 3017 hernias were repaired laparoscopically and 2972 hernias were repaired using an open method in 5588 patients. For four of the six outcomes the summary point estimates favoured LIHR over OIHR; there was a significant reduction of 38 per cent in the relative odds of postoperative complications (odds ratio 0·62 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0·46 to 0·84); P = 0·002), 4·73 (95 per cent c.i. 3·51 to 5·96) days in time to return to normal activity (P < 0·001), 6·96 (95 per cent c.i. 5·34 to 8·58) days in time to return to work (P < 0·001) and 3·43 (95 per cent c.i. 0·35 to 6·50) h in time to discharge from hospital (P = 0·029). There was a significant increase of 15·20 (95 per cent c.i. 7·78 to 22·63) min in the mean operating time for LIHR (P < 0·001). The relative odds of short-term recurrence were increased by 50 per cent for LIHR compared with OIHR, although this result was not statistically significant (odds ratio 1·51 (95 per cent c.i. 0·81 to 2·79); P = 0·194). Conclusion: LIHR was associated with earlier discharge from hospital, quicker return to normal activity and work, and significantly fewer postoperative complications than OIHR. However, the operating time was significantly longer and there was a trend towards an increase in the relative odds of recurrence after laparoscopic repair.
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
Cites
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
(2000) · Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) · Cited by 1,795
Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers
Horton, R. (1996) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)90137-3 · Cited by 588
Comparison of Conventional Anterior Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery for Inguinal-Hernia Repair
Liem, M. S. L., van der Graaf, Y., van Steensel, C. J., Boelhouwer, R. U., Clevers, G.-J., Meijer, W. S., Stassen, L. P. S., Vente, J. P., Weidema, W. F., Schrijvers, A. J. P., et al. (1997) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199705293362201 · Cited by 541
Laparoscopic versus open repair of groin hernia: a randomised comparison
(1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(98)10010-7 · Cited by 349
EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration, & Grant, A. (2000) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01540.x · Cited by 328
Laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair: randomised prospective trial
Stoker, D. L., Spiegelhalter, D. J., Singh, R., & Wellwood, J. M. (1994) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(94)92148-2 · Cited by 325
Wellwood, J., Sculpher, M. J., Stoker, D., Nicholls, G. J., Geddes, C., Whitehead, A., Singh, R., & Spiegelhalter, D. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7151.103 · Cited by 307
Laparoscopic or Open Inguinal Herniorrhaphy?: A Randomized Prospective Trial
Payne, J. H. (1994) · Archives of Surgery · doi:10.1001/archsurg.1994.01420330087016 · Cited by 254
Cited by
International guidelines for groin hernia management
The HerniaSurge Group (2018) · Hernia · doi:10.1007/s10029-017-1668-x · Cited by 2,296
European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients
Simons, M. P., Aufenacker, T., Bay-Nielsen, M., Bouillot, J. L., Campanelli, G., Conze, J., de Lange, D., Fortelny, R., Heikkinen, T., Kingsnorth, A., et al. (2009) · Hernia · doi:10.1007/s10029-009-0529-7 · Cited by 1,617
A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies
Sidik, K., & Jonkman, J. N. (2007) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2688 · Cited by 380
Bittner, R., Montgomery, M. A., Arregui, E., Bansal, V., Bingener, J., Bisgaard, T., Buhck, H., Dudai, M., Ferzli, G. S., Fitzgibbons, R. J., et al. (2015) · Surgical Endoscopy · doi:10.1007/s00464-014-3917-8 · Cited by 411
Jenkins, J. T., & O’Dwyer, P. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39450.428275.ad · Cited by 363
Update of the international HerniaSurge guidelines for groin hernia management
Stabilini, C., van Veenendaal, N., Aasvang, E., Agresta, F., Aufenacker, T., Berrevoet, F., Burgmans, I., Chen, D., de Beaux, A., East, B., et al. (2023) · BJS Open · doi:10.1093/bjsopen/zrad080 · Cited by 292
Karthikesalingam, A., Markar, S. R., Holt, P. J. E., & Praseedom, R. K. (2010) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.6902 · Cited by 173
Metadata
- Authors
- Memon, M. A., Cooper, N. J., Memon, B., Memon, M. I., & Abrams, K. R.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-11-04
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1479-1492
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2168372774
- Cited by
- 423
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 3.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.