Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics, patient numbers, and quality of the eight studies that were included in this meta-analysis

From: The evidence based dilemma of intraperitoneal drainage for pancreatic resection – a systematic review and meta-analysis

Year Author Study design Patients Inclusion year (from - until) Age (years) Gender (men, women) Disease (malignant, benign) Type of resection (PD, distal, others) Study quality
MINORS STROBE
1998 Heslin[5] Retrospective 89 1994 - 1996 65 (mean) 50, 39 78, 11 89, 0, 0 83% 58%
2001 Conlon[6] Prospective randomized 179 n.s. - n.s. 65 (mean) 89, 90 176, 3 139, 40, 0 79% 77%
2011 Fisher[8] Time cohort 226 2004 - 2010 62 (median) 97, 129 113, 113 153, 73, 0 60% 69%
2012 Paulus[10] Retrospective 69 1997 - 2011 55 (median) n.s., n.s. 52, 17 0, 69, 0 65% 55%
2013 Adham[9] Retrospective 242 2005 - 2012 62 (median) 127, 115 180, 62 148, 66, 28 58% 66%
2013 Mehta[11] Retrospective 709 2005 - 2012 62 (mean) 352, 357 451, 258 709, 0, 0 70% 69%
2013 Correa-Gallego[7] Retrospective 1122 2006 - 2011 65 (mean) 548, 574 786, 336 739, 350, 33 50% 60%
2014 Van Buren[12] Prospective randomized 137 2011 - 2012 63 (mean) 75, 62 95, 42 137, 0, 0 88% 90%
  1. If not indicated otherwise, numbers of patients are stated. For the explanation of study quality according to MINORS and STROBE criteria, see in the text. n.s., not specified, PD, pancreaticoduodenectomy.