Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 237

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Peritoneal Drainage or Laparotomy for Neonatal Bowel Perforation?: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Rees, Clare M., Eaton, Simon, Kiely, Edward M., Wade, Angie M., McHugh, Kieran, Pierro, Agostino·2008·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether primary peritoneal drainage improves survival and outcome of extremely low birth weight (ELBW) infants with intestinal perforation. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Optimal surgical management of ELBW infants with intestinal perforation is unknown. METHODS: An international multicenter randomized controlled trial was performed between 2002 and 2006. Inclusion criteria were birthweight >or=1000 g and pneumoperitoneum on x-ray (necrotizing enterocolitis or isolated perforation). Patients were randomized to peritoneal drain or laparotomy, minimizing differences in weight, gestation, ventilation, inotropes, platelets, country, and on-site surgical facilities. Patients randomized to drain were allowed to have a delayed laparotomy after at least 12 hours of no clinical improvement. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were randomized (35 drain, 34 laparotomy); 1 subsequently withdrew consent. Six-month survival was 18/35 (51.4%) with a drain and 21/33 (63.6%) with laparotomy (P = 0.3; difference 12% 95% CI, -11, 34%). Cox regression analysis showed no significant difference between groups (hazard ratio for primary drain 1.6; P = 0.3; 95% CI, 0.7-3.4). Delayed laparotomy was performed in 26/35 (74%) patients after a median of 2.5 days (range, 0.4-21) and did not improve 6-month survival compared with primary laparotomy (relative risk of mortality 1.4; P = 0.4; 95% CI, 0.6-3.4). Drain was effective as a definitive treatment in only 4/35 (11%) surviving neonates, the rest either had a delayed laparotomy or died. CONCLUSIONS: Seventy-four percent of neonates treated with primary peritoneal drainage required delayed laparotomy. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the 2 randomization groups. Primary peritoneal drainage is ineffective as either a temporising measure or definitive treatment. If a drain is inserted, a timely "rescue" laparotomy should be considered. Trial registration number ISRCTN18282954; http://isrctn.org/

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 · 10.1097/sla.0b013e318176bf81

Cites

2 of 2 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

Cited by

See all 237

Metadata

Authors
Rees, C. M., Eaton, S., Kiely, E. M., Wade, A. M., McHugh, K., & Pierro, A.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2008-07
Volume
248
Issue
1
Pages
44-51
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1968596383
Cited by
237
References
2
FWCI
9.18
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Peritoneal Drainage or Laparotomy for Neonatal Bowel Perforation?: A Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e318176bf81
The paper
Rees, C. M., Eaton, S., Kiely, E. M., Wade, A. M., McHugh, K., & Pierro, A. (2008). Peritoneal Drainage or Laparotomy for Neonatal Bowel Perforation?: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e318176bf81

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.