Surgical prevalence and outcomes in ischemic colitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Rattachement africain : au, ie. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND/AIM: This study reviews the literature to examine the proportion of patients requiring surgical management in ischemic colitis (IC) and identify surgical outcomes. METHOD: A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted in accordance with the latest Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. English language studies and adult patients were included. Studies with fewer than 10 patients, and IC post aortic or cardiac surgery was excluded. We present our systematic review and meta-analysis with pooled proportions of right sided IC distribution and prevalence of surgical treatment. RESULTS: 23 studies with a total of 12,844 patients were included in the systematic review, with 19 studies and 12,420 patients included in the meta-analysis. Four studies were excluded from the meta-analysis due to only including specific cohorts of patients-two with cocaine induced colitis, one with phlebosclerotic colitis, and one with IC associated with acute myocardial infarction. The pooled proportion of right sided IC distribution was 15% (CI 14%-17%, p < 0.001), whilst the pooled proportion of surgical management of IC was 15% (CI 13%-16% p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Prevalence of surgical management of IC is rare. Right sided IC is associated with higher mortality and higher rates of surgical management. Reporting of surgical outcomes is scant.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Surgical prevalence and outcomes in ischemic colitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
- Date Crossref
- 05/03/2024
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.