EAES, SAGES, and ESCP rapid guideline: bowel preparation for minimally invasive colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: Variation exists in practice pertaining to bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery. A survey of EAES members prioritized this topic to be addressed by a clinical practice guideline. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations on the use of bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery, through evidence synthesis and a structured evidence-to-decision framework by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. METHODS: This is a collaborative project of EAES, SAGES, and ESCP. We updated a previous systematic review and performed a network meta-analysis of interventions. We appraised the certainty of the evidence for each comparison, using the GRADE and CINeMA methods. A panel of general and colorectal surgeons, infectious diseases specialists, an anesthetist, and a patient representative discussed the evidence in the context of benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, acceptability, feasibility, equity, cost, and use of resources, moderated by a GIN-certified master guideline developer and chair. We developed the recommendations in a consensus meeting, followed by a modified Delphi survey. RESULTS: The panel suggests either oral antibiotics alone prior to minimally invasive right colon resection or mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus oral antibiotics; MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive left colon and sigmoid resection, and prior to minimally invasive right colon resection when there is an intention to perform intracorporeal anastomosis; and MBP plus oral antibiotics plus enema prior to minimally invasive rectal surgery (conditional recommendations); and recommends MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery, when there is an intention to localize the lesion intraoperatively (strong recommendation). The full guideline with user-friendly decision aids is available in https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/LwvKej . CONCLUSION: This guideline provides recommendations on bowel preparation prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery for different procedures, using highest methodological standards, through a structured framework informed by key stakeholders. Guideline registration number PREPARE-2023CN045.

Do pooled estimates from orthodontic meta-analyses change depending on the meta-analysis approach? A meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: In meta-analyses involving a few trials, appropriate measures should be employed to assess between-study heterogeneity. When the number of studies is less than five and heterogeneity is evident, the Hartung and Knapp (HK) correction should be used. The aim of this study was to compare the reported estimates of published orthodontic meta-analyses with the pooled effect size estimates and prediction intervals (PI) calculated using eight heterogeneity estimators and corrected using the HK correction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Systematic reviews (SRs) published between 2017 and 2022 in four orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews with a meta-analysis of at least three studies were sourced. Study characteristics were extracted at the SR and the outcome/meta-analysis levels. All selected meta-analyses were re-analysed by fitting a random-effects model using eight different heterogeneity estimators, both with and without the HK correction. For each meta-analysis, the overall estimate, along with its standard error, the P-value, and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), the between-study variance (tau2), the I2 statistic, and the PI were calculated. RESULTS: One-hundred-six SRs were analysed. The most prevalent type of SR was non-Cochrane (95.3%), and the most used meta-analyses synthesis model was the random effect (83.0%). The median number of primary studies was 6 (interquartile range: 5, range: 3-45). The between-study variance was reported in most of the eligible meta-analyses (91.5%), but the type of heterogeneity estimator was reported in only one of them (0.9%). In 5 of 106 meta-analyses (4.7%), the HK correction was applied to adjust the CI of the pooled estimate. The percentage of statistically significant results, which became statistically non-significant, ranged from 16.7% to 25%, depending on the heterogeneity estimator. As the number of studies in a meta-analysis increased, the difference between corrected and uncorrected CIs reduced. Based on the PIs, more than half of the meta-analyses having statistically significant results are likely to change in the future, suggesting the result of the meta-analysis is not conclusive. CONCLUSIONS: The statistical significance of pooled estimates from meta-analyses with at least three studies is sensitive to the HK correction, the heterogeneity variance estimator, and PIs. Clinicians should be aware of the clinical implications of not appropriately assessing the effect of the small number of studies and the between-study heterogeneity when interpreting results from meta-analyses.

EHS Rapid Guideline: Evidence-Informed European Recommendations on Parastomal Hernia Prevention-With ESCP and EAES Participation.

Background: Growing evidence on the use of mesh as a prophylactic measure to prevent parastomal hernia and advances in guideline development methods prompted an update of a previous guideline on parastomal hernia prevention. Objective: To develop evidence-based, trustworthy recommendations, informed by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review on the use of a prophylactic mesh for end colostomy, and we synthesized evidence using pairwise meta-analysis. A European panel of surgeons, stoma care nurses, and patients developed an evidence-to-decision framework in line with GRADE and Guidelines International Network standards, moderated by a certified guideline methodologist. The framework considered benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, patients' preferences and values, cost and resources considerations, acceptability, equity and feasibility. Results: The certainty of the evidence was moderate for parastomal hernia and low for major morbidity, surgery for parastomal hernia, and quality of life. There was unanimous consensus among panel members for a conditional recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy and fair life expectancy, and a strong recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients at high risk to develop a parastomal hernia. Conclusion: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed, interdisciplinary recommendations on the use of prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy. Further, it identifies research gaps, and discusses implications for stakeholders, including overcoming barriers to implementation and specific considerations regarding validity.

Update Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment of the Evidence on Parastomal Hernia Prevention-A EHS, ESCP and EAES Collaborative Project.

Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of prophylactic mesh for the prevention of parastomal hernia in end colostomy, with the ultimate objective to summarize the evidence for an interdisciplinary, European rapid guideline. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review with de novo evidence search of PubMed from inception up to June 2022. Primary outcome was quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes were clinical diagnosis of parastomal hernia, surgery for parastomal hernia, and 30 day or in-hospital complications Clavien-Dindo ≥3. We utilised the revised Cochrane Tool for randomised trials (RoB 2 tool) for risk of bias assessment in the included studies. Minimally important differences were set a priori through voting of the panel members. We appraised the evidence using GRADE and we developed GRADE evidence tables. Results: We included 12 randomized trials. Meta-analysis suggested no difference in QoL between prophylactic mesh and no mesh for primary stoma construction (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.14 to 0.2], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). With regard to parastomal hernia, the use of prophylactic synthetic mesh resulted in a significant risk reduction of the incidence of the event, according to data from all available randomized trials, irrespective of the follow-up period (OR = 0.33, 95% CI [0.18-0.62], I2 = 74%, moderate certainty of evidence). Sensitivity analyses according to follow-up period were in line with the primary analysis. Little to no difference in surgery for parastomal hernia was encountered after pooled analysis of 10 randomised trials (OR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.25-1.09], I2 = 14%). Finally, no significant difference was found in Clavien-Dindo grade 3 and 4 adverse events after surgery with or without the use of a prophylactic mesh (OR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.45-1.30], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). Conclusion: Prophylactic synthetic mesh placement at the time of permanent end colostomy construction is likely associated with a reduced risk for parastomal hernia and may confer similar risk of peri-operative major morbidity compared to no mesh placement. There may be no difference in quality of life and surgical repair of parastomal hernia with the use of either approach.

Protocol for EHS Rapid Guideline: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, GRADE Assessment, and European Recommendations on Parastomal Hernia Prevention.

Background: Parastomal hernia presents frequently after construction of a permanent end colostomy. Previous guidelines recommend using a prophylactic mesh for hernia prevention. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published hereafter demonstrate conflicting outcomes. Methods and Analysis: A rapid guideline will be developed and reported in accordance with GRADE, GIN and AGREE-S standards. The steering group will consist of general and colorectal surgeons, members of the EHS Scientific Advisory Board with expertise and experience in guideline development, advanced medical statistics and evidence synthesis, and a certified guideline methodologist. The guideline panel will consist of three general surgeons, three colorectal surgeons, two stoma care nurses, and two patient representatives. A single question will address the safety and efficacy of the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients with a permanent end colostomy, and sensitivity analyses will focus on the use of non-absorbable versus absorbable meshes, and on different anatomical spaces for mesh placement. A systematic review will be conducted and evidence synthesis will be performed by statisticians independently. The results of evidence synthesis will be summarized in summary of findings tables. Recommendation(s) will be finalized through Delphi process of the guideline panel within an evidence-to-decision framework. Ethics and Dissemination: The funding body will not be involved in the development of this guideline. Conflicts of interest, if any, will be addressed by re-assigning functions or replacing participants with direct conflicts, according to Guidelines International Network recommendations.