Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Appendix stump closure during laparoscopic appendectomy

This is not the most recent version

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006437.pub2Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 12 December 2012see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Protocol
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Colorectal Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2012 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Su Peng

    Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

  • Yao Cheng

    Bile Duct Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

  • Yalin Zhang

    Institute of Digestive Surgery, Sichuan University, West China Hospital, Chengdu, China

  • Jin Zhou

    Institute of Digestive Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

  • Yun Liao

    Department of Laboratory Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

  • Nansheng Cheng

    Bile Duct Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

  • Geert Kazemier

    Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands

  • Stefan Sauerland

    Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany

  • Zong‐Guang Zhou

    Correspondence to: Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

    [email protected]

Contributions of authors

Stefan Sauerland and Geert Kazemier had the idea for the review.

Su Peng: drafted the protocol, developed the search strategies, will assess the risk of bias of the trials and draft the final review.
Yao Cheng: drafted the protocol, will assess the risk of bias of the trials and interpret the analysis within the review. Jin Zhou: will select which trials to include and extract data from trials. Yalin Zhang: will select which trials to include and extract data from trials.
Nansheng Cheng: will enter data into RevMan and carry out the analysis.
Yun Liao: will enter data into RevMan and carry out the analysis.
Su Peng: will interpret the analysis within the review. Zong‐Guang Zhou: revised the protocol, will revise the final review. All authors agreed on the final version of the protocol.

Peng S and Cheng Y have equally contributed to developing the draft protocol.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China.

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

None known

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group, CCCG editorial office, Dr. Henning Keinke Andersen and Dr. Anne Sofie Christensen both assisting in the development of the protocol, Dr. Marija Barbateskovic who developed the search strategies and will run the literature searches.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2017 Nov 13

Closure methods of the appendix stump for complications during laparoscopic appendectomy

Review

Gurdeep S Mannu, Maria K Sudul, Joao H Bettencourt‐Silva, Elspeth Cumber, Fangfang Li, Allan B Clark, Yoon K Loke

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006437.pub3

2012 Dec 12

Appendix stump closure during laparoscopic appendectomy

Protocol

Su Peng, Yao Cheng, Yalin Zhang, Jin Zhou, Yun Liao, Nansheng Cheng, Geert Kazemier, Stefan Sauerland, Zong‐Guang Zhou

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006437.pub2

2007 Apr 18

Appendix stump closure during laparoscopic appendectomy

Protocol

Stefan Sauerland, Geert Kazemier

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006437

Keywords

MeSH

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.

Data collection form (Microsoft Word)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Data collection form (Microsoft Word)

Table 1. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias

Domain

Support for judgement

Review authors’ judgement

Random sequence generation.

Describe the method used to generate the allocation sequence in sufficient detail to allow an assessment of whether it should produce comparable groups.

Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate generation of a randomised sequence: High risk/Low risk/Unclear risk?

Allocation concealment.

Describe the method used to conceal the allocation sequence in sufficient detail to determine whether intervention allocations could have been foreseen in advance of, or during, enrolment.

Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment: High risk/Low risk/Unclear risk?

Blinding of participants and personnel.

Describe all measures used, if any, to blind study participants and personnel from knowledge of which intervention a participant received. Provide any information relating to whether the intended blinding was effective.

Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by participants and personnel during the study: High risk/Low risk/Unclear risk?

Blinding of outcome assessment.

Describe all measures used, if any, to blind outcome assessors from knowledge of which intervention a participant received. Provide any information relating to whether the intended blinding was effective.

Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors: High risk/Low risk/Unclear risk?

Incomplete outcome data.

Describe the completeness of outcome data for each main outcome, including attrition and exclusions from the analysis. State whether attrition and exclusions were reported, the numbers in each intervention group (compared with total randomised participants), reasons for attrition/exclusions where reported, and any re‐inclusions in analyses performed by the review authors.

Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data: High risk/Low risk/Unclear risk?

Selective reporting.

State how the possibility of selective outcome reporting was examined by the review authors, and what was found.

Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting: High risk/Low risk/Unclear risk?

Other sources of bias.

State any important concerns about bias not addressed in the other domains in the tool.

Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table: High risk/Low risk/Unclear risk?

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias