Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 423

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

Memon, M A, Cooper, N J, Memon, B, Memon, M I, Abrams, K R·2003·British Journal of Surgery
DOI 10.1002/bjs.4301
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bjs.4301

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 423

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
DOI
10.1002/bjs.4301
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.