Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 253

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Preoperative risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Pommergaard, H.‐C., Gessler, B., Burcharth, J., Angenete, E., Haglind, E., Rosenberg, J.·2014·Colorectal Disease

Abstract

Aim: Colorectal anastomotic leakage is a serious complication. Despite extensive research, no consensus on the most important preoperative risk factors exists. The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to evaluate risk factors for anastomotic leakage in patients operated with colorectal resection. Method: The databases MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL were searched for prospective observational studies on preoperative risk factors for anastomotic leakage. Meta‐analyses were performed on outcomes based on odds ratios (OR) from multivariate regression analyses. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used for bias assessment within studies, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for quality assessment of evidence on outcome levels. Results: This review included 23 studies evaluating 110 272 patients undergoing colorectal resection for cancer. The meta‐analyses found that a low rectal anastomosis [OR = 3.26 (95% CI: 2.31–4.62)], male gender [OR = 1.48 (95% CI: 1.37–1.60)] and preoperative radiotherapy [OR = 1.65 (95% CI: 1.06–2.56)] may be risk factors for anastomotic leakage. Primarily as a result of observational design, the quality of evidence was regarded as moderate or low for these risk factors according to the GRADE approach. Conclusion: Based on the best available evidence, important preoperative risk factors for colorectal anastomotic leakage have been identified. Knowledge on risk factors may influence treatment and procedure‐related decisions, and possibly reduce the leakage rate.

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 · 10.1111/codi.12618

Cites

37 of 37 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 37 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Pommergaard, H. ‐., Gessler, B., Burcharth, J., Angenete, E., Haglind, E., & Rosenberg, J.
Venue
Colorectal Disease
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-08-13
Volume
16
Issue
9
Pages
662-671
ISSN
  • 1462-8910 (ISSN-L)
  • 1463-1318
OpenAlex
W1967037538
Cited by
253
References
37
FWCI
1.61
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

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.