Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Peritoneal drainage versus laparotomy as initial surgical treatment for perforated necrotizing enterocolitis or spontaneous intestinal perforation in preterm low birth weight infants

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006182.pub2Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 15 June 2011see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Neonatal Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Shripada C Rao

    Correspondence to: Neonatal Care Unit, King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women and Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Subiaco, Australia

    [email protected]

  • Laxman Basani

    Neonatology, Royal North Shore Hospital, St. Leonards, Australia

  • Karen Simmer

    Neonatal Care Unit, King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women and Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Subiaco, Australia

  • Naeem Samnakay

    Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Hospital, Subiaco, Australia

  • Girish Deshpande

    Neonatal Pediatrics, Nepean Hospital Sydney and University of Sydney, Kingswood, Australia

Contributions of authors

Shripada Rao (SR) performed the literature search, selected the relevant studies, assessed the methodological quality of studies, entered the data into RevMan and wrote the manuscript of the review.

Laxman Basani (LB) was mainly responsible for writing the protocol of the review. He also reviewed the draft of the review to identify any major deficiencies.

Girish Deshpande (GD) performed the literature search, selected the relevant studies, assessed the methodological quality of the studies and checked the data entered into RevMan by SR.

Naeem Samnakay (NS) contacted the authors to get additional information from their studies and checked the data entered into RevMan by SR. He also reviewed the draft of the review to identify any major deficiencies.

Karen Simmer (KS) revised and edited the draft of the protocol as well as the completed review. She was the referee reviewer at various stages of the review process.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women, Perth, Australia.

  • Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Perth, Australia.

  • Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia.

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

None

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Prof Lawrence Moss and Clare Rees for providing additional information from their studies.

The Cochrane Neonatal Review Group has been funded in part through Federal funds from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, USA, under Contract No. HHSN267200603418C.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2011 Jun 15

Peritoneal drainage versus laparotomy as initial surgical treatment for perforated necrotizing enterocolitis or spontaneous intestinal perforation in preterm low birth weight infants

Review

Shripada C Rao, Laxman Basani, Karen Simmer, Naeem Samnakay, Girish Deshpande

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006182.pub2

2006 Oct 18

Peritoneal drainage versus laparotomy as initial surgical treatment for perforated necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm and low birth weight infants

Protocol

Laxman Basani, Shripada C Rao, Karen Simmer

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006182

Differences between protocol and review

The title has been changed to 'Peritoneal drainage versus laparotomy as initial surgical treatment for perforated necrotizing enterocolitis or spontaneous intestinal perforation in preterm low birth weight infants'.

New outcome: need for laparotomy at any stage has been added.

New outcome: cost effectiveness has been added.

New subgroup analysis: perforated NEC versus SIP.

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.