Evidence of surgical outcomes fluctuates over time: Results from a cumulative meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis

BMC Gastroenterology

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Ukai, Tomohiko ^a   Shikata, Satoru ^a   Takeda, Hiromu ^b   Dawes, Lauren ^c   Noguchi, Yoshinori ^d   Nakayama, Takeo ^e   Takemura, Yousuke C ^a  

^a MIE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^b Mie Prefectural Ichishi Hospital   (Japan)

^c FLINDERS MEDICAL CENTRE   (Australia)

^d NAGOYA DAINI RED CROSS HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^e KYOTO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Japan)

Author keywords

Cumulative meta analysis; Laparoscopic appendectomy; Open appendectomy; Randomized controlled trials

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL ABSCESS; ACUTE APPENDICITIS; APPENDECTOMY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LAPAROSCOPIC APPENDECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LENGTH OF STAY; META ANALYSIS; OPEN APPENDECTOMY; OPERATION DURATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SURGICAL INFECTION; ACUTE DISEASE; APPENDICITIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; INCIDENCE; LAPAROSCOPY; ODDS RATIO; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROCEDURES; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; SURGICAL WOUND INFECTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ABDOMINAL ABSCESS; ACUTE DISEASE; APPENDECTOMY; APPENDICITIS; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; LAPAROSCOPY; LENGTH OF STAY; ODDS RATIO; OPERATIVE TIME; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SURGICAL WOUND INFECTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84960842997     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1471230X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-016-0453-0     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700.
2. Lau J, Antman EM, Jimenez-Silva J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1992;327(4):248-54.
3. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1992;268:240-8.
4. Effectiveness of intravenous thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardico (GISSI). Lancet. 1986;1:397-402.
5. Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1988;2:349-360.
6. Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, Boutron I, Clavien P-A, Reeves BC, Seiler CM, Altman DG, Aronson JK, Barkun JS, et al. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1097-104.
7. Shikata S, Nakayama T, Noguchi Y, Taji Y, Yamagishi H. Comparison of effects in randomized controlled trials with observational studies in digestive surgery. Ann Surg. 2006;244(5):668-76.
8. Li X, Zhang J, Sang L, Zhang W, Chu Z, Li X, Liu Y. Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy- a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Gastroenterol. 2010;10:129.
9. Ohtani H, Tamamori Y, Arimoto Y, Nishiguchi Y, Maeda K, Hirakawa K. Meta-analysis of the results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopic and open surgery for acute appendicitis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:1929-39.
10. Sauerland S, Jaschinski T, Neugebauer EA. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;10:CD001546. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001546.pub3.
11. Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Miles JNV, Camosso-Stefinovic J. How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94:130-6.
12. Wong SS, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound treatment studies in EMBASE. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94(1):41-7.
13. Wong SS, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Optimal CINAHL search strategies for identifying therapy studies and review articles. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2006;38(2):194-9.
14. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177-88.
15. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-60.
16. Sweeting MJ, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC. What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data. Stat Med. 2004;23:1351-75.
17. Habre C, Tramèr MR, Pöpping DM, Elia N. Ability of a meta-analysis to prevent redundant research: systematic review of studies on pain from propofol injection. BMJ. 2014;348:g5219. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g5219.
18. Penninga L, Gluud C, Wetterslev J. Meta-analysis of randomised trials on laparoscopic versus open surgery for acute appendicitis: has firm evidence been reached? J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18(7):1383-4.
19. Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA, Garthwaite PH, Monk AF, Russell IT. Assessment of the learning curve in health technologies. A systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(12):1-79.
20. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, Nicholl J, Aronson JK, Barkun JS, Blazeby JM, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374:1105-12.
21. Harrysson IJ, Cook J, Sirimanna P, Feldman LS, Darzi A, Aggarwal R. Systematic review of learning curves for minimally invasive abdominal surgery: a review of the methodology of data collection, depiction of outcomes, and statistical analysis. Ann Surg. 2014;260(1):37-45.
22. Chan A-W, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, Gøtzsche PC, Krumholz HM, Ghersi D, van der Worp HB. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014;383:257-66.
23. Pereira TV, Ioannidis JPA. Statistically significant meta-analyses of clinical trials have modest credibility and inflated effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1060-9.
24. Pereira TV, Horwitz RI, Ioannidis JP. Empirical evaluation of very large treatment effects of medical interventions. JAMA. 2012;308(16):1676-84.
25. Klein JB, Jacobs RH, Reinecke MA. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for adolescent depression: a meta-analytic investigation of changes in effect-size estimates. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007;46(11):1403-13.
26. Clarke M, Brice A, Chalmers I. Accumulating research: a systematic account of how cumulative meta-analyses would have provided knowledge, improved health, reduced harm and saved resources. PLoS One. 2014;9:e102670.
27. Roberts I, Ker K, Edwards P, Beecher D, Manno D, Sydenham E. The knowledge system underpinning healthcare is not fit for purpose and must change. BMJ. 2015;350:h2463.
28. Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(1):64-75.
29. Keus F, Wetterslev J, Gluud C, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJ. Robustness assessments are needed to reduce bias in meta-analyses that include zero-event randomized trials. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(3):546-51. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2008.22.
30. Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, Maddern GJ, Strasberg SM, Balliol C, Altman DG, Barkun JS, Blazeby JM, Boutron IC, et al. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1089-96.