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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data From Retrospective Studies of Disease
(1959) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/22.4.719 · Cited by 14,689
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
Cited by
Diener, M. K., Seiler, C. M., Rossion, I., Kleeff, J., Glanemann, M., Butturini, G., Tomazic, A., Bruns, C. J., Busch, O. R., Farkas, S., et al. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60237-7 · Cited by 554
Self-citationPasireotide for Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula
Allen, P. J., Gönen, M., Brennan, M. F., Bucknor, A. A., Robinson, L. M., Pappas, M. M., Carlucci, K. E., D'Angelica, M. I., DeMatteo, R. P., Kingham, T. P., et al. (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1313688 · Cited by 438
Michalski, C. W., Kleeff, J., Wente, M. N., Diener, M. K., Büchler, M. W., & Friess, H. (2007) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.5716 · Cited by 302
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Knaebel, H. P., Diener, M. K., Wente, M. N., Büchler, M. W., & Seiler, C. M.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.