{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["410(1)"],"submitter":["Wadewitz E"],"funding":["Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg"],"pubmed_abstract":["<h4>Purpose</h4>This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to evaluate surgical and alternative treatment strategies for perforated peptic ulcers (PPU) with respect to mortality and other clinically relevant outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>An NMA was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to assess treatment approaches for PPU. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) were identified through systematic searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP databases. Outcomes were analyzed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data and odds ratios (ORs) for binary data, both presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in a network meta-analysis framework.<h4>Results</h4>Sixteen studies comprising 1,259 patients were included in this NMA. The "],"journal":["Langenbeck's archives of surgery"],"pagination":["266"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12413338"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"pubmed_title":["Approaches for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials."],"pmcid":["PMC12413338"],"pubmed_authors":["Zimmermann S","Friedrichs J","Grilli M","Sunami Y","Wadewitz E","Rebelo A","Vey JA","Kleeff J","Klose J","Ronellenfitsch U"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Approaches for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","description":"<h4>Purpose</h4>This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to evaluate surgical and alternative treatment strategies for perforated peptic ulcers (PPU) with respect to mortality and other clinically relevant outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>An NMA was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to assess treatment approaches for PPU. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) were identified through systematic searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP databases. Outcomes were analyzed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data and odds ratios (ORs) for binary data, both presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in a network meta-analysis framework.<h4>Results</h4>Sixteen studies comprising 1,259 patients were included in this NMA. The ","dates":{"release":"2025-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2025 Sep","modification":"2026-05-29T22:21:57.224Z","creation":"2026-04-08T06:12:28.264Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC12413338","cross_references":{"pubmed":["40911086"],"doi":["10.1007/s00423-025-03848-9"]}}