Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 169

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mesh versus suture repair of umbilical hernia in adults: a randomised, double-blind, controlled, multicentre trial

Kaufmann, Ruth, Halm, Jens A, Eker, Hasan H, Klitsie, Pieter J, Nieuwenhuizen, Jeroen, van Geldere, Dick, Simons, Maarten P, van der Harst, Erwin, van 't Riet, Martijne, van der Holt, Bronno, Kleinrensink, Gert Jan, Jeekel, Johannes, Lange, Johan F·2018·The Lancet
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30298-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30298-8

Cites

1 of 1 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Muysoms, 2009, Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias, Hernia, 13, 407, 10.1007/s10029-009-0518-x · DOI
  2. Schumacher, 2003, Long-term results after Spitzy's umbilical hernia repair, Chirurg, 74, 50, 10.1007/s00104-002-0536-z · DOI
  3. Luijendijk, 2000, A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia, N Engl J Med, 343, 392, 10.1056/NEJM200008103430603 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Vrijland, 2002, Randomized clinical trial of non-mesh versus mesh repair of primary inguinal hernia, Br J Surg, 89, 293, 10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.02030.x · DOI
  5. Burger, 2004, Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia, Ann Surg, 240, 578, 10.1097/01.sla.0000141193.08524.e7 · DOI · Paper page
  6. van Veen, 2007, Long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial of non-mesh versus mesh repair of primary inguinal hernia, Br J Surg, 94, 506, 10.1002/bjs.5627 · DOI
  7. Arroyo, 2001, Randomized clinical trial comparing suture and mesh repair of umbilical hernia in adults, Br J Surg, 88, 1321, 10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01893.x · DOI
  8. Halm, 2005, Long-term follow-up after umbilical hernia repair: are there risk factors for recurrence after simple and mesh repair, Hernia, 9, 334, 10.1007/s10029-005-0010-1 · DOI
  9. Polat, 2005, Umbilical hernia repair with the prolene hernia system, Am J Surg, 190, 61, 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.09.021 · DOI
  10. Witherspoon, 2005, Surgeon perspectives on options for ventral abdominal wall hernia repair: results of a postal questionnaire, Hernia, 9, 259, 10.1007/s10029-005-0331-0 · DOI
  11. Mayo, 1901, An operation for the radical cure of umbilical hernia, Ann Surg, 34, 276, 10.1097/00000658-190107000-00021 · DOI
  12. Knook, 2001, Optimal mesh size for endoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a study in a porcine model, Surg Endosc, 15, 1471, 10.1007/s00464-001-0048-9 · DOI
  13. Ware, 1992, The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection, Med Care, 30, 473, 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Mangram, 1999, Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital infection control practices advisory committee, Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 20, 250, 10.1086/501620 · DOI
  15. Asolati, 2006, Predictors of recurrence in Veteran patients with umbilical hernia: single center experience, Am J Surg, 192, 627, 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.08.022 · DOI
  16. Berger, 2014, Suture versus preperitoneal polypropylene mesh for elective umbilical hernia repairs, J Surg Res, 192, 426, 10.1016/j.jss.2014.05.080 · DOI
  17. Dalenbäck, 2013, Long-term follow-up after elective adult umbilical hernia repair: low recurrence rates also after non-mesh repairs, Hernia, 17, 493, 10.1007/s10029-012-0988-0 · DOI
  18. Farrow, 2008, More than 150 consecutive open umbilical hernia repairs in a major Veterans Administration Medical Center, Am J Surg, 196, 647, 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.07.018 · DOI
  19. Venclauskas, 2008, Umbilical hernia: factors indicative of recurrence, Medicina (Kaunas), 44, 855, 10.3390/medicina44110108 · DOI
  20. Eryilmaz, 2006, Which repair in umbilical hernia of adults: primary or mesh?, Int Surg, 91, 258
  21. Stabilini, 2009, Mesh versus direct suture for the repair of umbilical and epigastric hernias. Ten-year experience, Ann Ital Chir, 80, 183
  22. Christoffersen, 2013, Lower reoperation rate for recurrence after mesh versus sutured elective repair in small umbilical and epigastric hernias. A nationwide register study, World J Surg, 37, 2548, 10.1007/s00268-013-2160-0 · DOI
  23. Christoffersen, 2015, Long-term recurrence and chronic pain after repair for small umbilical or epigastric hernias: a regional cohort study, Am J Surg, 209, 725, 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.05.021 · DOI
  24. Lal, 2012, A comparative study of anatomical repair versus mesh repair in paraumbilical hernia, Medical Channel, 19, 110
  25. Sadiq, 2013, Paraumbilical hernias: a comparison between mesh hernioplasty and simple suture repair at Arif Memorial Teaching Hospital Lahore, Pak J Med Sci, 7, 925
  26. Erritzøe-Jervild, 2013, Long-term complaints after elective repair for small umbilical or epigastric hernias, Hernia, 17, 211, 10.1007/s10029-012-0960-z · DOI
  27. Köhler, 2015, Sutured repair of primary small umbilical and epigastric hernias: concomitant rectus diastasis is a significant risk factor for recurrence, World J Surg, 39, 121, 10.1007/s00268-014-2765-y · DOI
  28. Murtaza, 2009, Open extraperitoneal mesh repair for abdominal wall hernias in females, J Coll Physicians Surg Pak, 19, 763
  29. Kulah, 2001, Presentation and outcome of incarcerated external hernias in adults, Am J Surg, 181, 101, 10.1016/S0002-9610(00)00563-8 · DOI
  30. Abdel-Baki, 2007, Comparison of prosthetic mesh repair and tissue repair in the emergency management of incarcerated para-umbilical hernia: a prospective randomized study, Hernia, 11, 163, 10.1007/s10029-007-0189-4 · DOI
  31. van Veen, 2008, Spinal or local anesthesia in Lichtenstein hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial, Ann Surg, 247, 428, 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318165b0ff · DOI
  32. Malik, 2008, Mesh versus non-mesh repair of ventral abdominal hernias, J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad, 20, 54
  33. Tollens, 2011, Retrospective analysis of umbilical, epigastric, and small incisional hernia repair using the Ventralex hernia patch, Hernia, 15, 531, 10.1007/s10029-011-0816-y · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Kaufmann, R., Halm, J. A., Eker, H. H., Klitsie, P. J., Nieuwenhuizen, J., van Geldere, D., Simons, M. P., van der Harst, E., van 't Riet, M., van der Holt, B., Kleinrensink, G. J., Jeekel, J., & Lange, J. F.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
391
Issue
10123
Pages
860-869
ISSN
0140-6736
DOI
10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30298-8
Cited by
169
References
1
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

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.