TY - JOUR
T1 - Evidence Map of Pancreatic Surgery–A living systematic review with meta-analyses by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS)
AU - Probst, Pascal
AU - Hüttner, Felix J.
AU - Meydan, Ömer
AU - Abu Hilal, Mohammed
AU - Adham, Mustapha
AU - Barreto, Savio G.
AU - Besselink, Marc G.
AU - Busch, Olivier R.
AU - Bockhorn, Maximillian
AU - del Chiaro, Marco
AU - Conlon, Kevin
AU - Castillo, Carlos Fernandez-del
AU - Friess, Helmut
AU - Fusai, Giuseppe Kito
AU - Gianotti, Luca
AU - Hackert, Thilo
AU - Halloran, Christopher
AU - Izbicki, Jakob
AU - Kalkum, Eva
AU - Kelemen, Dezső
AU - Kenngott, Hannes G.
AU - Kretschmer, R. diger
AU - Landré, Vincent
AU - Lillemoe, Keith D.
AU - Miao, Yi
AU - Marchegiani, Giovanni
AU - Mihaljevic, André
AU - Radenkovich, Dejan
AU - Salvia, Roberto
AU - Sandini, Marta
AU - Serrablo, Alejandro
AU - Shrikhande, Shailesh
AU - Shukla, Parul J.
AU - Siriwardena, Ajith K.
AU - Strobel, Oliver
AU - Uzunoglu, Faik G.
AU - Vollmer, Charles
AU - Weitz, J. rgen
AU - Wolfgang, Christopher L.
AU - Zerbi, Alessandro
AU - Bassi, Claudio
AU - Dervenis, Christos
AU - Neoptolemos, John
AU - Büchler, Markus W.
AU - Diener, Markus K.
N1 - Funding Information: Each aspect of the study process, including screening, data extraction, analysis, creation of the map, and social media presentations was completed by the staff of the Study Center of the German Surgical society (Systematic Review Working Group). The project itself is funded by the Heidelberg Foundation for Surgery (Heidelberger Stiftung Chirurgie, www.stiftung-chirurgie.de ) in Heidelberg, Germany. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Authors
PY - 2021/11
Y1 - 2021/11
N2 - Background: Pancreatic surgery is associated with considerable morbidity and, consequently, offers a large and complex field for research. To prioritize relevant future scientific projects, it is of utmost importance to identify existing evidence and uncover research gaps. Thus, the aim of this project was to create a systematic and living Evidence Map of Pancreatic Surgery. Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were systematically searched for all randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on pancreatic surgery. Outcomes from every existing randomized controlled trial were extracted, and trial quality was assessed. Systematic reviews were used to identify an absence of randomized controlled trials. Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on identical subjects were grouped according to research topics. A web-based evidence map modeled after a mind map was created to visualize existing evidence. Meta-analyses of specific outcomes of pancreatic surgery were performed for all research topics with more than 3 randomized controlled trials. For partial pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, pooled benchmarks for outcomes were calculated with a 99% confidence interval. The evidence map undergoes regular updates. Results: Out of 30,860 articles reviewed, 328 randomized controlled trials on 35,600 patients and 332 systematic reviews were included and grouped into 76 research topics. Most randomized controlled trials were from Europe (46%) and most systematic reviews were from Asia (51%). A living meta-analysis of 21 out of 76 research topics (28%) was performed and included in the web-based evidence map. Evidence gaps were identified in 11 out of 76 research topics (14%). The benchmark for mortality was 2% (99% confidence interval: 1%–2%) for partial pancreatoduodenectomy and <1% (99% confidence interval: 0%–1%) for distal pancreatectomy. The benchmark for overall complications was 53% (99%confidence interval: 46%–61%) for partial pancreatoduodenectomy and 59% (99% confidence interval: 44%–80%) for distal pancreatectomy. Conclusion: The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery Evidence Map of Pancreatic Surgery, which is freely accessible via www.evidencemap.surgery and as a mobile phone app, provides a regularly updated overview of the available literature displayed in an intuitive fashion. Clinical decision making and evidence-based patient information are supported by the primary data provided, as well as by living meta-analyses. Researchers can use the systematic literature search and processed data for their own projects, and funding bodies can base their research priorities on evidence gaps that the map uncovers.
AB - Background: Pancreatic surgery is associated with considerable morbidity and, consequently, offers a large and complex field for research. To prioritize relevant future scientific projects, it is of utmost importance to identify existing evidence and uncover research gaps. Thus, the aim of this project was to create a systematic and living Evidence Map of Pancreatic Surgery. Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were systematically searched for all randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on pancreatic surgery. Outcomes from every existing randomized controlled trial were extracted, and trial quality was assessed. Systematic reviews were used to identify an absence of randomized controlled trials. Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on identical subjects were grouped according to research topics. A web-based evidence map modeled after a mind map was created to visualize existing evidence. Meta-analyses of specific outcomes of pancreatic surgery were performed for all research topics with more than 3 randomized controlled trials. For partial pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, pooled benchmarks for outcomes were calculated with a 99% confidence interval. The evidence map undergoes regular updates. Results: Out of 30,860 articles reviewed, 328 randomized controlled trials on 35,600 patients and 332 systematic reviews were included and grouped into 76 research topics. Most randomized controlled trials were from Europe (46%) and most systematic reviews were from Asia (51%). A living meta-analysis of 21 out of 76 research topics (28%) was performed and included in the web-based evidence map. Evidence gaps were identified in 11 out of 76 research topics (14%). The benchmark for mortality was 2% (99% confidence interval: 1%–2%) for partial pancreatoduodenectomy and <1% (99% confidence interval: 0%–1%) for distal pancreatectomy. The benchmark for overall complications was 53% (99%confidence interval: 46%–61%) for partial pancreatoduodenectomy and 59% (99% confidence interval: 44%–80%) for distal pancreatectomy. Conclusion: The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery Evidence Map of Pancreatic Surgery, which is freely accessible via www.evidencemap.surgery and as a mobile phone app, provides a regularly updated overview of the available literature displayed in an intuitive fashion. Clinical decision making and evidence-based patient information are supported by the primary data provided, as well as by living meta-analyses. Researchers can use the systematic literature search and processed data for their own projects, and funding bodies can base their research priorities on evidence gaps that the map uncovers.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85108857394&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2021.04.023
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2021.04.023
M3 - Article
C2 - 34187695
SN - 0039-6060
VL - 170
SP - 1517
EP - 1524
JO - Surgery (United States)
JF - Surgery (United States)
IS - 5
ER -