↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Surgery for the resolution of symptoms in malignant bowel obstruction in advanced gynaecological and gastrointestinal cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
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 (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
peer_reviews
2 peer review sites
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
337 Mendeley
Title
Surgery for the resolution of symptoms in malignant bowel obstruction in advanced gynaecological and gastrointestinal cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002764.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah E Cousins, Emma Tempest, David J Feuer

Abstract

This is an update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2000. Intestinal obstruction commonly occurs in progressive advanced gynaecological and gastrointestinal cancers. Management of these patients is difficult due to the patients' deteriorating mobility and function (performance status), the lack of further chemotherapeutic options, and the high mortality and morbidity associated with palliative surgery. There are marked variations in clinical practice concerning surgery in these patients between different countries, gynaecological oncology units and general hospitals, as well as referral patterns from oncologists under whom these patients are often admitted. To assess the efficacy of surgery for intestinal obstruction due to advanced gynaecological and gastrointestinal cancer. We searched the following databases for the original review in 2000 and again for this update in June 2015: CENTRAL (2015, Issue 6); MEDLINE (OVID June week 1 2015); and EMBASE (OVID week 24, 2015).We also searched relevant journals, bibliographic databases, conference proceedings, reference lists, grey literature and the world wide web for the original review in 2000; we also used personal contact. This searching of other resources yielded very few additional studies. The Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group no longer routinely handsearch journals. For these reasons, we did not repeat the searching of other resources for the June 2015 update. As the review concentrates on the 'best evidence' available for the role of surgery in malignant bowel obstruction in known advanced gynaecological and gastrointestinal cancer we kept the inclusion criteria broad (including both prospective and retrospective studies) so as to include all studies relevant to the question. We sought published trials reporting on the effects of surgery for resolving symptoms in malignant bowel obstruction for adult patients with known advanced gynaecological and gastrointestinal cancer. We used data extraction forms to collect data from the studies included in the review. Two review authors extracted the data independently to reduce error. Owing to concerns about the risk of bias we decided not to conduct a meta-analysis of data and we have presented a narrative description of the study results. We planned to resolve disagreements by discussion with the third review author. In total we have identified 43 studies examining 4265 participants. The original review included 938 patients from 25 studies. The updated search identified an additional 18 studies with a combined total of 3327 participants between 1997 and June 2015. The results of these studies did not change the conclusions of the original review.No firm conclusions can be drawn from the many retrospective case series so the role of surgery in malignant bowel obstruction remains controversial. Clinical resolution varies from 26.7% to over 68%, though it is often unclear how this is defined. Despite being an inadequate proxy for symptom resolution or quality of life, the ability to feed orally was a popular outcome measure, with success rates ranging from 30% to 100%. Rates of re-obstruction varied, ranging from 0% to 63%, though time to re-obstruction was often not included. Postoperative morbidity and mortality also varied widely, although again the definition of both of these surgical outcomes differed between many of the papers. There were no data available for quality of life. The reporting of adverse effects was variable and this has been described where available. Where discussed, surgical procedures varied considerably and outcomes were not reported by specific intervention. Using the 'Risk of bias' assessment tool, most included studies were at high risk of bias for most domains. The role of surgery in malignant bowel obstruction needs careful evaluation, using validated outcome measures of symptom control and quality of life scores. Further information could include re-obstruction rates together with the morbidity associated with the various surgical procedures.Currently, bowel obstruction is managed empirically and there are marked variations in clinical practice by different units. In order to compare outcomes in malignant bowel obstruction, there needs to be a greater degree of standardisation of management.Since the last version of this review none of the new included studies have provided additional information to change the conclusions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 337 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 332 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 17%
Student > Bachelor 40 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 9%
Researcher 25 7%
Student > Postgraduate 24 7%
Other 60 18%
Unknown 100 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 133 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 12%
Psychology 13 4%
Social Sciences 8 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 2%
Other 32 9%
Unknown 104 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 19 October 2017.
All research outputs
#3,698,259
of 25,809,966 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,370
of 13,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,785
of 403,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#148
of 266 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,809,966 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 403,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 266 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.