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.