Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Técnicas preperitoneales abiertas versus reparación de Lichtenstein para la reparación electiva de la hernia inguinal

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008034.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 11 julio 2012see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Colorrectal

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2012 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

  • Wouter Willaert

    Correspondencia a: General & Hepatobiliary Surgery, University Hospital and Medical School Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

    [email protected]

  • Dirk De Bacquer

    Department of Public Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

  • Xavier Rogiers

    General & Hepatobiliary Surgery, University Hospital and Medical School Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

  • Roberto Troisi

    General & Hepatobiliary Surgery, University Hospital and Medical School Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

  • Frederik Berrevoet

    General & Hepatobiliary Surgery, University Hospital and Medical School Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

Contributions of authors

  1. Conceiving the review: WILLAERT, BERREVOET.

  2. Designing the review: WILLAERT, BERREVOET.

  3. Coordinating the review: BERREVOET.

  4. Data collection for the review.

    1. Designing search strategies: BERREVOET.

    2. Undertaking searches: WILLAERT, BERREVOET.

    3. Screening search results: WILLAERT, BERREVOET.

    4. Organizing retrieval of papers: WILLAERT.

    5. Screening retrieved papers against eligibility criteria: WILLAERT, BERREVOET, TROISI.

    6. Appraising quality of papers: WILLAERT, BERREVOET, TROISI.

    7. Extracting data from papers: WILLAERT, BERREVOET, TROISI.

    8. Writing to authors of papers for additional information: WILLAERT.

    9. Providing additional data about papers: WILLAERT.

    10. Obtaining and screening data on unpublished studies: WILLAERT, BERREVOET.

  5. Data management for the review.

    1. Entering data into RevMan: WILLAERT.

  6. Analysis of data: DE BACQUER, WILLAERT.

  7. Interpretation of data.

    1. Providing a methodological perspective: WILLAERT, DEBACQUER, BERREVOET.

    2. Providing a clinical perspective: WILLAERT, BERREVOET.

    3. Providing a policy perspective, WILLAERT, BERREVOET, TROISI.

    4. Providing a consumer perspective: WILLAERT, BERREVOET, TROISI.

  8. Writing the review: WILLAERT, BERREVOET, ROGIERS.

  9. Providing general advice on the review: BERREVOET, TROISI.

  10. Securing funding for the review: NONE.

  11. Performing previous work that was the foundation of the current review: BERREVOET.

 

Declarations of interest

None known

Acknowledgements

None

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2012 Jul 11

Open Preperitoneal Techniques versus Lichtenstein Repair for elective Inguinal Hernias

Review

Wouter Willaert, Dirk De Bacquer, Xavier Rogiers, Roberto Troisi, Frederik Berrevoet

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008034.pub2

2009 Oct 07

Open Preperitoneal Techniques versus Lichtenstein Repair for Inguinal Hernia

Protocol

Wouter Willaert, Frederik Berrevoet, Dirk De Bacquer, Xavier Rogiers, Roberto Troisi

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008034

Differences between protocol and review

  1. As described in the ‘types of outcome measures’,  the intended cut off value for pain on the 100‐mm VAS pain score was 40. After analysis we noted that the included studies used 0 as cut off value for pain. As IPD were not available in one study, the review authors were obliged to change the cut off value from 40 to 0.

  2. Hematoma as a late complication was excluded in the review because of little relevance.

  3. In the protocol was mentioned that statistical testing for heterogeneity would be performed. When included studies are few in number and there are obvious reasons for clinical or methodological diversity, statistical evaluation of heterogeneity was not performed since it has low power. 

  4. Although intended in the protocol, meta‐analysis was not performed because the main outcomes, acute and chronic pain, were too diverse in the control groups.

 

Notes

None