2023
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14459
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A meta‐analysis of the risk factors for surgical site infection in patients with colorectal cancer

Yani Chen,
Hua Guo,
Tian Gao
et al.

Abstract: The purpose of the meta‐analysis was to evaluate and compare the surgical site infection (SSI) risk factors in patients with colorectal cancer (CC). The results of this meta‐analysis were analysed, and the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using dichotomous or contentious random or fixed‐effect models. For the current meta‐analysis, 23 examinations spanning from 2001 to 2023 were included, encompassing 89 859 cases of CC. Clean‐contaminated surgical si… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 68 publications
(183 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…When P>0.1, I 2 ≤30% indicated low heterogeneity between studies, 30% < I 2 ≤ 50% indicated moderate heterogeneity, and I 2 > 50% indicated high heterogeneity. For low and moderate heterogeneity, a fixed-effects model was used; for high heterogeneity, a randomeffects model was adopted [8,9]. Funnel plots and Egger's test were used to analyze publication bias.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…When P>0.1, I 2 ≤30% indicated low heterogeneity between studies, 30% < I 2 ≤ 50% indicated moderate heterogeneity, and I 2 > 50% indicated high heterogeneity. For low and moderate heterogeneity, a fixed-effects model was used; for high heterogeneity, a randomeffects model was adopted [8,9]. Funnel plots and Egger's test were used to analyze publication bias.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unrelated literature was filtered out by reading the titles, and two researchers independently extracted the characteristics of included studies (including authors, publication years, total number of participants, study countries, numbers of patients with and without diseases, etc.). The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) was used for quality assessment of the included literature [8,9] .…”
Section: Literature Screening Data Extraction and Quality Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%