Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 365

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

Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials on the Role of Mechanical Bowel Preparation Before Colorectal Surgery

Slim, Karem, Vicaut, Eric, Launay-Savary, Marie-Véronique, Contant, Caroline, Chipponi, Jacques·2009·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

In Brief Background: Earlier meta-analyses of small randomized trials suggested that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) should be omitted before colorectal surgery because it does not affect complication rates 0 mortality and may be even harmful; however, more recent large randomized trials suggested an increased occurrence of pelvic abscesses in the absence of MBP. Therefore, an updated large meta-analysis was conducted to re-evaluate the role of MBP in colorectal surgery. Furthermore, the influence of different kind of MBP regimes on infectious outcomes was examined. Methods: The meta-analysis was conducted according to the QUOROM statement; the inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials comparing MBP with no MBP before colorectal surgery. The primary outcome was anastomotic leakage; secondary outcomes were other septic complications. Results: Fourteen trials were included with a total number of 4859 patients: 2452 in the MBP group and 2407 in the no MBP group. We found no statistical difference between the groups for anastomotic leakage [OR = 1.12 (0.82–1.53), P = 0.46], pelvic or abdominal abscess (P = 0.75), and wound sepsis (P = 0.11). When all surgical site infections were considered, the meta-analysis favored no MBP [OR = 1.40 (1.05–1.87), P = 0.02]. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results for all subgroups but when poor or small trials were excluded, there was a slightly higher risk of deep abdominal abscesses with no MBP, however, the number needed to harm was as high as 333 patients, suggesting this difference to be not clinically relevant. The use of different MBP regimes did not influence primary and secondary outcomes. The main limitation concerned rectal surgery for which the limited data preclude any interpretation. Conclusion: Although it did not confirm the harmful effect of mechanical bowel preparation (suggested by previous meta-analyses), this meta-analysis including almost 5000 patients, demonstrates with a high level of evidence that any kind of mechanical bowel preparation should be omitted before colonic surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials suggest that, in contrast to earlier meta-analyses, there is no detrimental effect from bowel preparation. Furthermore, it is of no clinical benefit and can be abandoned. The slightly increased risk of deep abscesses without bowel preparation is not clinically relevant and the main limitation of this meta-analysis concerns rectal surgery, which needs further evaluation.

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.0b013e318193425a

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

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

Cited by

See all 365

Metadata

Authors
Slim, K., Vicaut, E., Launay-Savary, M.-V., Contant, C., & Chipponi, J.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2009-02
Volume
249
Issue
2
Pages
203-209
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1996729991
Cited by
365
References
1
FWCI
5.65
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: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials on the Role of Mechanical Bowel Preparation Before Colorectal Surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e318193425a
The paper
Slim, K., Vicaut, E., Launay-Savary, M.-V., Contant, C., & Chipponi, J. (2009). Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials on the Role of Mechanical Bowel Preparation Before Colorectal Surgery. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e318193425a

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.