Cochrane · systematic review · CD004778

Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease

Sanabria, A, Villegas, MI, Morales Uribe, CH · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013 · Cochrane Library

GutAMSTAR 2: not assessed

SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.

Questions

current version

GRADE rated

No studies

Included studies

No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 28.6%Low 4 · 57.1%Moderate 1 · 14.3%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Questions and results

Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for perforated peptic ulcer disease

Population: patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease

7 questions

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Septic abdominal complications (presence or absence) Clinical definition Laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery	OR 0.66 [0.3, 1.47]	2 studies · 214 participants	Low Downgraded: imprecision
Pulmonary complications (presence or absence) Laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery	OR 0.52 [0.08, 3.55]	3 studies · 315 participants	Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency
Surgical site infection Laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery	OR 0.28 [0.08, 1]	3 studies · 315 participants	Moderate Downgraded: imprecision
Suture dehiscence Laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery	OR 1.52 [0.29, 7.98]	3 studies · 315 participants	Low Downgraded: imprecision
Postoperative ileus Laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery	OR 0.54 [0.16, 1.8]	3 studies · 315 participants	Low Downgraded: inconsistency
Intra‐abdominal abscess Laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery	OR 1.15 [0.33, 4.03]	3 studies · 315 participants	Very low
Operative time Laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery	no estimate extracted	2 studies · 214 participants	Very low