Evidence Hub

Perforated peptic ulcers in children: a systematic review

Vidović S, Borović S, Bašković M, Markić J, Pogorelić Z

BMC pediatrics, 2025

239 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Background: Perforated peptic ulcers (PPU) represent a significant complication of peptic ulcers, associated with high mortality. As no systematic review of the literature on PPU in children currently exists, this study aims to summarize findings from studies focusing on its risk factors, etiology, treatment modalities, and outcomes.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A literature search was performed on 24 November 2024, using four electronic databases: Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and ScienceDirect. The inclusion criteria were studies published in English, focusing on perforated peptic ulcers in paediatric patients. The exclusion criteria were: studies published in languages other than English; publication formats such as conference abstracts, personal communications, and single case reports; studies focusing on non-perforated peptic ulcers; studies involving participants > 18 years; and studies reporting ulcer perforations outside the stomach or duodenum.

Results: Out of 1963 records identified, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. A total of 239 children with perforated peptic ulcers were analyzed, with a median age of 11 years (range 3.2-16.5 years). The results indicate that ulcer perforations were more prevalent in males (74.8%). Furthermore, duodenal perforations (73%) were more common than gastric perforations (27%). The most commonly reported symptoms were abdominal pain (n = 175, 73.2%),…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 239 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free