↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Daikenchuto for reducing postoperative ileus in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
43 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
Title
Daikenchuto for reducing postoperative ileus in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012271.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nobuaki Hoshino, Toshihiko Takada, Koya Hida, Suguru Hasegawa, Toshi A Furukawa, Yoshiharu Sakai

Abstract

Postoperative ileus is a major complication for persons undergoing abdominal surgery. Daikenchuto, a Japanese traditional medicine (Kampo), is a drug that may reduce postoperative ileus. To assess the efficacy and safety of Daikenchuto for reducing prolonged postoperative ileus in persons undergoing elective abdominal surgery. We searched the following databases on 3 July 2017: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ICHUSHI, WHO (World Health Organization) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), EU Crinical Trials registry (EU-CTR), UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR), ClinicalTrials.gov, The Japan Society for Oriental Medicine (JSOM), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endscopic Surgeons (SAGES). We set no limitations on language or date of publication. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Daikenchuto with any control condition in adults, 18 years of age or older, undergoing elective abdominal surgery. We applied standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently reviewed the articles identified by literature searches, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of the included studies using the Cochrane software Review Manager 5. We included seven RCTs with a total of 1202 participants. Overall, we judged the risk of bias as low in four studies and high in three studies. We are uncertain whether Daikenchuto reduced time to first flatus (mean difference (MD) -11.32 hours, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.45 to -5.19; two RCTs, 83 participants; very low-quality evidence), or time to first bowel movement (MD -9.44 hours, 95% CI -22.22 to 3.35; four RCTs, 500 participants; very low-quality evidence) following surgery. There was little or no difference in time to resumption of regular solid food following surgery (MD 3.64 hours, 95% CI -24.45 to 31.74; two RCTs, 258 participants; low-quality evidence). There were no adverse events in either arm of the five RCTs that reported on drug-related adverse events (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02, 568 participants, low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of Daikenchuto on patient satisfaction (MD 0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.37; one RCT, 81 participants; very low-quality of evidence). There was little or no difference in the incidence of any re-interventions for postoperative ileus before leaving hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.62; one RCT, 207 participants; moderate-quality evidence), or length of hospital stay (MD -0.49 days, 95% CI -1.21 to 0.22; three RCTs, 292 participants; low-quality evidence). Evidence from current literature was unclear whether Daikenchuto reduced postoperative ileus in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery, due to the small number of participants in the meta-analyses. Very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain whether Daikenchuto improved postoperative flatus or bowel movement. Further well-designed and adequately powered studies are needed to assess the efficacy of Daikenchuto.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 17%
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Other 7 7%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 26 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 33 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,412,051
of 25,652,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,994
of 13,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,488
of 344,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#80
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,652,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,153 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 211 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.