<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>410(1)</volume><submitter>Wadewitz E</submitter><funding>Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg</funding><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Purpose&lt;/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.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/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.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Sixteen studies comprising 1,259 patients were included in this NMA. The </pubmed_abstract><journal>Langenbeck's archives of surgery</journal><pagination>266</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12413338</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Approaches for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC12413338</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Zimmermann S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Friedrichs J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Grilli M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Sunami Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wadewitz E</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Rebelo A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Vey JA</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kleeff J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Klose J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ronellenfitsch U</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Approaches for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.</name><description>&lt;h4>Purpose&lt;/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.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/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.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Sixteen studies comprising 1,259 patients were included in this NMA. The </description><dates><release>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2025 Sep</publication><modification>2026-05-29T22:21:57.224Z</modification><creation>2026-04-08T06:12:28.264Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC12413338</accession><cross_references><pubmed>40911086</pubmed><doi>10.1007/s00423-025-03848-9</doi></cross_references></HashMap>