Introduction: Perforated peptic ulcers are a life-threatening complication associated with high morbidity and mortality. Several treatment approaches are available. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare surgical and alternative approaches for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers regarding mortality and other patient-relevant outcomes.
Methods and analysis: A systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov trial registry and ICTRP will be conducted with predefined search terms.To address the question of the most effective treatment approach, an NMA will be performed for each of the outcomes mentioned above. A closed network of interventions is expected. The standardised mean difference with its 95% CI will be used as the effect measure for the continuous outcomes, and the ORs with 95% CI will be calculated for the binary outcomes.
Ethics and dissemination: In accordance with the nature of the data used in this meta-analysis, which involves aggregate information from previously published studies ethical approval is deemed unnecessary. Results will be disseminated directly to decision-makers (eg, surgeons, gastroenterologists) through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at conferences.
Prospero registration number: CRD42023482932.
Keywords: Gastrointestinal tumours; Meta-Analysis.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.