The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing lightweight and heavyweight mesh for laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of lightweight and heavyweight mesh on postoperative recovery in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair. PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Library were used to search for published clinical randomized controlled trials, which compared lightweight meshes with heavyweight meshes in TEP inguinal hernia repair. The outcomes were calculated as risk ratios with 95 per cent confidence intervals using RevMan 5.2. Eight randomized controlled trials were included. Compared with a heavyweight mesh, the lightweight mesh led to a higher incidence of recurrence (risk ratio = 2.52, 95% confidence interval 1.10–5.81; P = 0.03). There was no significant difference in chronic moderate to severe pain, foreign body sensation, and seroma. The use of lightweight mesh is not recommended for TEP inguinal hernia repair.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“these trials 27,28 have likewise found no difference between rates of pain and foreign-body sensation.”
From Effect of Hernia Mesh Weights on Postoperative Patient-Related and Clinical Outcomes After Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2021) · cites this paper as [28]
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 29
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06251-1 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.surge.2013.11.018 · DOI
- 10.1089/lap.2016.0491 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00464-015-4461-x · DOI
- 10.1590/S0102-86502014001300009 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00423-017-1618-1 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00423-004-0534-3 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10029-018-1734-z · DOI
- 10.1007/s10029-014-1316-7 · DOI
- 10.1002/bjs.9598 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.10.025 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00464-012-2179-6 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10029-018-1809-x · DOI
- 10.1007/s00464-004-9100-x · DOI
- 10.1007/s10029-005-0026-6 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10029-006-0179-y · DOI
- 10.1007/s00464-008-0188-2 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00464-010-1092-0 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00464-010-1036-8 · DOI
- 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181e8fac5 · DOI
- Peeters E., 2014, Hernia, 18, 361, 10.1007/s10029-013-1128-1 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00464-014-4049-x · DOI
- 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001579 · DOI
- 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002649 · DOI
- 10.1097/01.sla.0000157210.80440.b7 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00464-006-9147-y · DOI
- 10.4103/0972-9941.170018 · DOI
- 10.1089/lap.2013.0588 · DOI
- 10.1586/17434440.2.1.103 · DOI
Cited by
Krpata, D. M., Petro, C. C., Prabhu, A. S., Tastaldi, L., Zolin, S., Fafaj, A., Rosenblatt, S., Poulose, B. K., Pierce, R. A., Warren, J. A., et al. (2021) · JAMA Surgery · doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2021.4309 · Cited by 78
Metadata
- Authors
- Xu, M., & Xu, S.
- Affiliations
- Department of General Surgery, School of Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Shangyu People's Hospital of Shaoxing City, Shaoxing, China
- Venue
- The American Surgeon™
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-06
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 620-624
- ISSN
- 0003-1348
- 1555-9823
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (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.
