Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy for the prevention of lymphocyst formation in patients with gynaecological malignancies

Esta versión no es la más reciente

ver la versión actual 29 junio 2017

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007387Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 08 octubre 2008see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Protocol
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Cáncer ginecológico, neurooncología y otros cánceres

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Kittipat Charoenkwan

    Correspondencia a: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

    [email protected]

  • Chumnan Kietpeerakool

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Contributions of authors

Kittipat Charoenkwan: Took the lead in writing the protocol. For the review, will take the lead in writing, select trials for inclusion, extract data, perform statistical analysis and interpretation of data. Chumnan Kietpeerakool: Will select trials for inclusion, extract data, perform statistical analysis and interpretation of data, and will comment on drafts of the review.

Declarations of interest

Kittipat Charoenkwan is a co‐author of the article "A prospective randomized study comparing retroperitoneal drainage with no drainage and no peritonization following radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for invasive cervical cancer" published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 2002;28(3):149‐53.

Acknowledgements

We thank Chris Williams, Co‐ordinating Editor, for editorial advice and Clare Jess for her contribution to the editorial process.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2017 Jun 29

Retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy for the prevention of lymphocyst formation in women with gynaecological malignancies

Review

Kittipat Charoenkwan, Chumnan Kietpeerakool

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007387.pub4

2014 Jun 04

Retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy for the prevention of lymphocyst formation in patients with gynaecological malignancies

Review

Kittipat Charoenkwan, Chumnan Kietpeerakool

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007387.pub3

2010 Jan 20

Retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy for the prevention of lymphocyst formation in patients with gynaecological malignancies

Review

Kittipat Charoenkwan, Chumnan Kietpeerakool

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007387.pub2

2008 Oct 08

Retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy for the prevention of lymphocyst formation in patients with gynaecological malignancies

Protocol

Kittipat Charoenkwan, Chumnan Kietpeerakool

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007387

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Female; Humans;

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.