Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 335

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of technique for closure of the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy

Open access
Knaebel, H P, Diener, M K, Wente, M N, Büchler, M W, Seiler, C M·2005·British Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Background: Appropriate closure of the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy is still debated. A variety of procedures have been recommended to reduce the frequency of pancreatic fistula. This review quantitatively compares the available techniques. Methods: Original articles and abstracts published up to the end of June 2004 were searched without language restriction in the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline and Embase. Three reviewers independently assessed each study's eligibility and quality, and extracted the data. A random effects model was performed using weighted odds ratios. Results: Only ten of 262 articles could be included, two randomized clinical trials and eight observational studies. Reported postoperative morbidity varied from 13·3 to 64 per cent. The primary outcome measure, pancreatic fistula rate, occurred within the range 0–60·9 per cent. Meta-analysis of the six studies comparing stapler versus hand-sutured closure showed a non-significant combined odds ratio for occurrence of a pancreatic fistula of 0·66 (95 per cent confidence interval 0·35 to 1·26, P = 0·21) in favour of stapler closure. Conclusions: The quality and quantity of information extracted from the available trials are insufficient to enable any firm conclusion to be drawn on the optimal surgical technique of pancreatic stump closure; there is a trend in favour of the stapling technique.

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.5000

Cites

3 of 3 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 335

Metadata

Authors
Knaebel, H. P., Diener, M. K., Wente, M. N., Büchler, M. W., & Seiler, C. M.
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Published
2005-04-25
Volume
92
Issue
5
Pages
539-546
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W2047883287
Cited by
335
References
3
FWCI
1.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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.