Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16437268›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2006

Management of common bile duct stones in a rural area of the United States: results of a survey.

J Bingener, W H Schwesinger

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A survey of European-African surgeons' management of common bile duct stones.HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association · 2016
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

J BingenerDepartment of Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX 78229-3900, USA. bingenercas@uthscsa.edu
W H Schwesinger

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic common bile duct exploration has been reported to be highly successful and cost-effective. It remains unknown to what extent the procedure is used in routine surgical practice.

methodsWe conducted a survey of general surgeons practicing in a rural area of the United States. The type of practice, laparoscopic training, performance of cholangiography, and preferred approach to choledocholithiasis were elicited.

resultsSixty-eight of 207 surveys (33%) were returned. Thirty respondents (45%) indicated that they perform laparoscopic common bile duct explorations. The likelihood of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration increased with a higher number of cholecystectomies per year (p < 0.05, chi-square) but was independent of training or routine cholangiography. The preferred approach to a patient with choledocholithiasis was endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (75%), followed by laparoscopic (21%) and open exploration (4%). Reasons for not performing laparoscopic exploration were time (58%), equipment (24%), good gastrointestinal backup (6%), reimbursement (3%), increased morbidity (1.5%), lack of skill (1.5%), and other/no reason (18%).

conclusionAlthough 45% of practicing surgeons indicated that they perform laparoscopic common bile duct explorations, only 21% practiced it as their preferred approach. Time constraints and lack of equipment are the main factors preventing the application of the laparoscopic technique toward choledocholithiasis.

Indexed as

Biliary Tract Surgical ProceduresProfessional PracticeRural PopulationCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicCholedocholithiasisData CollectionHumansTexas

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.