A systematic review of outcomes reported in small bowel obstruction research

A systematic review of participant descriptors reported in studies of adhesive small bowel obstruction

AIM

Reporting of participant descriptors in studies of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) can help identify characteristics associated with favourable outcomes and allow comparison with other studies and real-world clinical populations. The aim was to identify the pattern of participant descriptors reported in studies assessing interventions for ASBO.

METHOD

This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021281031) and reported in line with the PRISMA checklist. Systematic searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were undertaken to identify studies assessing operative and non-operative interventions for adults with ASBO. Studies were dual screened for inclusion. Descriptors were categorised into conceptual domains by the research team.

RESULTS

Searches identified 2648 studies, of which 73 were included. A total of 156 unique descriptors were identified. On average, studies reported 12 descriptors. The most frequently reported descriptors were sex, age, SBO aetiology, history of abdominal surgery, BMI and ASA classification. The highest number of descriptors in a single study was 34, compared to the lowest number of descriptors which was one. Pathway factors were the least frequently described domain. Overall, 37 descriptors were reported in just one study.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of consistency in participant descriptors reported in studies of SBO. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the descriptors were used infrequently. This makes it challenging to assess whether study participants are representative of the wider population. Further work is required to develop a Core Descriptor Set to standardise the reporting of patient characteristics and reduce heterogeneity between studies.

Survey of Diagnostic and Management Practices in Small Bowel Obstruction: Individual and Generational Variation Despite Practice Guidelines

Background: Small bowel obstruction (SBO) is a common disorder managed by surgeons. Despite extensive publications and management guidelines, there is no universally accepted approach to its diagnosis and management. We conducted a survey of acute care surgeons to elucidate their SBO practice patterns.Methods: A self-report survey of SBO diagnosis and management practices was designed and distributed by email to AAST surgeons who cared for adult SBO patients. Responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Chi-square test of independence at α = .05.Results: There were 201 useable surveys: 53% ≥ 50 years, 77% male, 77% at level I trauma centers. Only 35.8% reported formal hospital SBO management guidelines. Computed tomography (CT) scan was the only diagnostic exam listed as "essential" by the majority of respondents (82.6%). Following NG decompression, 153 (76.1%) would "always/frequently" administer a water-soluble contrast challenge (GC). There were notable age differences in approach. Compared to those ≥50 years, younger surgeons were less likely to deem plain abdominal films as "essential" (16.0% vs 40.2%; P < .01) but more likely to require CT scan (88.3% vs 77.6%; P = .045) for diagnosis and to "always/frequently" administer GC (84.0% vs 69.2%; P < .01). Younger surgeons used laparoscopy "frequently" more often than older surgeons (34.0% vs 21.5%, P = .05).Discussion: There is significant variation in diagnosis and management of SBO among respondents in this convenience sample, despite existing PMGs. Novel age differences in responses were observed, which prompts further evaluation. Additional research is needed to determine whether variation in practice patterns is widespread and affects outcomes.

Formation of a conceptual framework during the development of a patient-reported outcome measure for early gastrointestinal recovery: phase I of the PRO-diGi study

AIM

Patients admitted to hospital for abdominal surgery often experience gastrointestinal dysfunction. Many studies have reported outcomes following gastrointestinal dysfunction, yet there is no unified definition of recovery or a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). The first stage of PROM development requires formation of a conceptual framework to identify key themes to patients. The aim of this study was to utilize semistructured interviews to identify core themes and concepts relevant to patients to facilitate development of a conceptual framework.

METHOD

Adult patients admitted to hospital for major gastrointestinal, urological or gynaecological surgery, in an emergency or elective setting, were eligible to participate. Patients treated nonoperatively for small bowel obstruction were also eligible. Interviews were conducted by telephone, audio-recorded, transcribed, coded and analysed using NVivo software by two researchers and reviewed by lay members of the steering group. Interviews continued until data saturation was reached. Ethical approval was gained prior to interviews (21/WA/0231).

RESULTS

Twenty nine interviews were completed (17 men, median age 64 years) across three specialties (20 gastrointestinal, six gynaecological, three urological). Two overarching themes of 'general recovery' and 'gastrointestinal symptoms' were identified. General recovery included three themes: 'life impact', 'mental impact', including anxiety, and 'physical impact', including fatigue. Gastrointestinal symptoms included three themes: 'abdominal symptoms' such as pain, 'diet and appetite' and 'expulsory function', such as stool frequency. A total of 18 gastrointestinal symptoms were identified during patient recovery-many of which lasted several weeks following discharge.

CONCLUSION

This study reports a range of gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal symptoms experienced by patients during early gastrointestinal recovery. Identified symptoms have been synthesized into a conceptual framework to enable development of a definitive PROM for early gastrointestinal recovery.

A core outcome set for clinical studies of adhesive small bowel obstruction

AIM

Adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) is a common surgical emergency condition. Research in the field is plentiful; however, inconsistency in outcome reporting makes comparisons challenging. The aim of this study was to define a core outcome set (COS) for studies of ASBO.

METHODS

The long list of outcomes was identified through systematic review, and focus groups across different geographical regions. A modified Delphi consensus exercise of three rounds was undertaken with stakeholder groups (patients and clinicians). Items were rated on a 9-point Likert scale. Items exceeding 70% rating at 7-9 were passed to the consensus meeting. New item proposals were invited in round 1. Individualised feedback on prior voting compared to other participants was provided. An international consensus meeting was convened to ratify the final COS.

RESULTS

In round 1, 56 items were rated by 118 respondents. A total of 18 items reached consensus, and respondents proposed an additional 10 items. Round 2 was completed by 90 respondents, and nine items achieved consensus. In round 3, 80 surveys were completed; one item achieved consensus, and five borderline items were identified. The final COS included 26 outcomes, mapped to the following domains: Interventions, need for stoma, septic complications, return of gut function, patient reported outcomes, and recurrence of obstruction, as well as mortality, failure to rescue, and time to resolution.

CONCLUSION

This COS should be used in future studies in the treatment of adhesive SBO. Further studies to define a core measurement set are needed to identify the optimum tools to measure each outcome.

Variability in the management of adhesive small bowel obstruction in children

BACKGROUND

This study assessed inter-hospital variability in operative-vs-nonoperative management of pediatric adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO).

METHODS

A multi-institutional retrospective study was performed examining patients 1-21 years-of-age presenting with ASBO from 2010 to 2019 utilizing the Pediatric Health Information System. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression was performed assessing inter-hospital variability in operative-vs-nonoperative management of ASBO.

RESULTS

Among 6410 pediatric ASBO admissions identified at 46 hospitals, 3,239 (50.5%) underwent surgery during that admission. The hospital-specific rate of surgery ranged from 35.3% (95%CI: 28.5-42.6%) to 74.7% (66.3-81.6%) in the unadjusted model (p < 0.001), and from 35.1% (26.3-45.1%) to 73.9% (66.7-79.9%) in the adjusted model (p < 0.001). Factors associated with operative management for ASBO included admission to a surgical service (OR 2.8 [95%CI: 2.4-3.2], p < 0.001), congenital intestinal and/or rotational anomaly (OR 2.5 [2.1-3.1], p < 0.001), diagnostic workup including advanced abdominal imaging (OR 1.7 [1.5-1.9], p < 0.001), non-emergent admission status (OR 1.5 [1.3-1.8], p < 0.001), and increasing number of complex chronic comorbidities (OR 1.3 [1.2-1.4], p < 0.001). Factors associated with nonoperative management for ASBO included increased hospital-specific annual ASBO volume (OR 0.98 [95%CI: 0.97-0.99], p = 0.002), older age (OR 0.97 [0.96-0.98], p < 0.001), public insurance (OR 0.87 [0.78-0.96], p = 0.008), and presence of coinciding non-intestinal congenital anomalies, neurologic/neuromuscular disease, and/or medical technology dependence (OR 0.57 [95%CI: 0.47-0.68], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of surgical intervention for ASBO vary significantly across tertiary children's hospitals in the United States. The variability was independent of patient and hospital characteristics and is likely due to practice variation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Reducing ileus after colorectal surgery: A network meta-analysis of therapeutic interventions

BACKGROUND

Several treatment strategies for avoiding post-operative ileus have been evaluated in randomised controlled trials. This network meta-analysis aimed to explore the relative effectiveness of these different therapeutic interventions on ileus outcome measures.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for post-operative ileus following colorectal surgery. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method. Direct and indirect comparisons of all regimens were simultaneously compared using random-effects network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 48 randomised controlled trials were included in this network meta-analysis reporting on 3614 participants. Early feeding was found to be the best treatment for time to solid diet tolerance and length of hospital stay with a probability of P = 0.96 and P = 0.47, respectively. Early feeding resulted in significantly shorter time to solid diet tolerance (Mean Difference (MD) 58.85 h; 95% Credible Interval (CrI) -73.41, -43.15) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD 2.33 days; CrI -3.51, -1.18) compared to no treatment. Epidural analgesia was ranked best treatment for time to flatus (P = 0.29) and time to stool (P = 0.268). Epidural analgesia resulted in significantly shorter time to flatus (MD -18.88 h; CrI -33.67, -3.44) and shorter time to stool (MD -26.05 h; 95% CrI -66.42, 15.65) compared to no intervention. Gastrograffin was ranked best treatment to avoid the requirement for post-operative nasogastric tube insertion (P = 0.61) however demonstrated limited efficacy (OR 0.50; CrI 0.143, 1.621) compared to no intervention. Nasogastric and nasointestinal tube insertion, probiotics, and acupuncture were found to be least efficacious as interventions to reduce ileus.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis identified early feeding as the most efficacious therapeutic intervention to reduce post-operative ileus in patients undergoing colorectal surgery, in addition to highlighting other therapies that require further investigation by high quality study. In patients undergoing colorectal surgery, emphasis should be placed on early feeding as soon as can be appropriately initiated to support the return of gastrointestinal motility.

A mapping review of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease

BACKGROUND

Pilonidal sinus is a hole in the natal cleft which may cause severe pain and become infected. The evidence base for management of pilonidal sinus is said to be poor quality, poorly focused and rapidly proliferating. We undertook a systematic mapping review to provide a broad overview of the field and support the identification of research priorities.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE from inception to 22nd Nov 2020 for primary research studies focused on the management of pilonidal sinus. We extracted data on study design and categorised studies under five major headings ('non-surgical treatment', 'surgical treatment', 'aftercare' and 'other'), producing frequency counts for different study designs. Gaps in research were identified from published systematic reviews and tabulated.

RESULTS

We identified 983 eligible studies, of which 36 were systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses; 121 were randomised controlled trials), and 826 observational studies of various design. The majority of studies evaluated surgical techniques (n = 665), or adjuvant medical interventions (n = 98). The literature on wound care has developed most recently, and the evidence base includes 30% randomised controlled trials. Gaps analysis highlighted comparison of surgical techniques including flaps, laser depilation, and wound care interventions as potential areas for randomised controlled trials.

CONCLUSIONS

This mapping review summarises eight decades of research on the management of pilonidal sinus. Further research is needed to identify front-running interventions, understand variation in practice and patient values, and to prioritise future research.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes after elective surgery for ulcerative colitis

AIM

Approximately 20%-30% of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) will undergo surgery during their disease course, the vast majority being elective due to chronic refractory disease. The risks of elective surgery are reported variably. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize the outcomes after elective surgery for UC.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted that analysed studies reporting outcomes for elective surgery in the modern era (>2002). It was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO database (ref: CRD42018115513). Searches were performed of Embase and MEDLINE on 15 January 2019. Outcomes were split by operation performed. Primary outcome was quality of life; secondary outcomes were early, late and functional outcomes after surgery. Outcomes reported in five or more studies underwent a meta-analysis of incidence using random effects. Heterogeneity is reported with I² , and publication bias was assessed using Doi plots and the Luis Furuya-Kanamori index.

RESULTS

A total of 34 studies were included (11 774 patients). Quality of life was reported in 12 studies, with variable and contrasting results. Thirteen outcomes (eight early surgical complications, five functional outcomes) were included in the formal meta-analysis, all of which were outcomes for ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). A further 71 outcomes were reported (50 IPAA, 21 end ileostomy). Only 14 of 84 outcomes received formal definitions, with high inter-study variation of definitions.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes after elective surgery for UC are variably defined. This systematic review and meta-analysis highlights the range of reported incidences and provides practical information that facilitates shared decision making in clinical practice.

Variation in descriptors of patient characteristics in randomized clinical trials of peptic ulcer repair: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The ability to compare findings across surgical research is important. Inadequate description of participants, interventions or outcomes could lead to bias and inaccurate assessment of findings. The aim of this study was to assess consistency of description of participants using studies comparing laparoscopic and open repair of peptic ulcer as an example.

METHODS

This systematic review is reported in line with the PRISMA checklist. Searches of MEDLINE and Embase databases were performed to identify studies comparing laparoscopic and open repair of perforated peptic ulcer in adults, published in the English language. Manuscripts were dual-screened for eligibility. Full texts were retrieved and dual-screened for inclusion. Data extracted from studies included descriptors of participants in studies from tables and text. Descriptors were categorized into conceptual domains by the research team, and coverage of each domain by study was tabulated.

RESULTS

Searches identified 2018 studies. After screening, 37 full texts were retrieved and 23 studies were included in the final synthesis. A total of 76 unique descriptors were identified. These were classified into demographics (11 descriptors), vital signs (9 descriptors), disease-specific characteristics (10 descriptors), presentation and pathway factors (4 descriptors), risk factors (8 descriptors), laboratory tests (14 descriptors) and baseline health (28 descriptors). The number of descriptors in a single study ranged from three to 31. All studies reported at least one demographic descriptor. Laboratory tests was the least frequently described domain.

CONCLUSION

Study participants are described inconsistently in studies of a single example surgical condition.

Establishing core outcome sets for gastrointestinal recovery in studies of postoperative ileus and small bowel obstruction: protocol for a nested methodological study

INTRODUCTION

Gastrointestinal recovery describes the restoration of normal bowel function in patients with bowel disease. This may be prolonged in two common clinical settings: postoperative ileus and small bowel obstruction. Improving gastrointestinal recovery is a research priority but researchers are limited by variation in outcome reporting across clinical studies. This protocol describes the development of core outcome sets for gastrointestinal recovery in the contexts of postoperative ileus and small bowel obstruction.

METHOD

An international Steering Group consisting of patient and clinician representatives has been established. As overlap between clinical contexts is anticipated, both outcome sets will be co-developed and may be combined to form a common output with disease-specific domains. The development process will comprise three phases, including definition of outcomes relevant to postoperative ileus and small bowel obstruction from systematic literature reviews and nominal-group stakeholder discussions; online-facilitated Delphi surveys via international networks; and a consensus meeting to ratify the final output. A nested study will explore if the development of overlapping outcome sets can be rationalized.

DISSEMINATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

The final output will be registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative. A multi-faceted, quality improvement campaign for the reporting of gastrointestinal recovery in clinical studies will be launched, targeting international professional and patient groups, charitable organizations and editorial committees. Success will be explored via an updated systematic review of outcomes 5 years after registration of the core outcome set.

Outcome Selection and Methodological Quality of Major and Minor Shoulder Surgery Studies: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Core outcome sets aim to select and standardize the choice of important outcomes reported in clinical trials to encourage more effective data synthesis, increase the reliability of comparing results, and minimize reporting bias. A core outcome set for elective shoulder surgery has yet to be defined, and therefore a systematic assessment of outcomes and methodology is necessary to inform the development of a core outcome set.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purpose of this study was to examine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients having elective major or minor shoulder surgery to (1) identify the outcome domains reported; (2) determine specific outcome measurement tools that were utilized; and (3) assess the work for methodological quality and risk of bias.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review (a review that identifies the nature and extent of research evidence) to explore the reported outcome domains, outcome tools, and methodological quality from RCTs conducted in shoulder surgery. We considered both major shoulder surgery (defined as arthroplasty, rotator cuff repair, stabilization procedures, biceps tenodesis, or Bankart repairs) and minor shoulder surgery (simple arthroscopy, capsular plication, lateral clavicular excisions, or subacromial decompression). We queried 10 electronic databases for studies published between January 2006 and January 2015. Studies were included if they were prospective, randomized controlled, clinical trials enrolling patients who received an elective shoulder surgical intervention. We extracted data relating to trial characteristics, primary outcomes, tools used to measure these outcomes as well as methodological quality indicators. We assessed indicators of methodological quality by exploring (1) the reproducibility of power analyses; and (2) whether the primary outcomes were powered to minimum clinically important differences. Risk of bias was also assessed with the Jadad score with scores between 0 (very high risk of bias) and 5 (very low risk). Findings were qualitatively analyzed and reported according to systematic and scoping review guidelines. We included 315 studies involving 30,232 patients; 266 studies investigated anesthetic, analgesic, or surgical interventions.

RESULTS

Of the 315 studies included, the most common outcome domains evaluated were analgesic (n = 104), functional (n = 87), anesthetic (n = 56), and radiologic (n = 29) outcomes, with temporal patterns noted. Studies of major shoulder surgery most commonly reported functional primary outcome domains, whereas minor shoulder surgery studies most frequently reported analgesic primary outcome domains. There were 85 different primary outcome tools utilized, which included 20 functional, 20 anesthetic, 13 analgesic, and 12 radiologic. A methodological quality assessment revealed that 24% of studies had reproducible power analyses, 13% were powered to minimum clinically important differences, and risk of bias assessment demonstrated a median (interquartile range [range]) Jadad score of 4 (3-5 [1-5]).

CONCLUSIONS

A wide range of outcome domains and outcome assessment tools are in common use in contemporary trials of patients undergoing elective surgery. Although some diversity is important to allow the assessment of patient populations that may have different goals, the large number of tools in common use may impair the ability of future meta-analyses to pool results effectively or even for systematic reviews to synthesize what is known. The limitations of methodological quality in RCTs may be improved by researchers following standard guidelines and considering the minimum clinically important differences in their trials to be of greater use to clinicians and their patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.