Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19915905›Full record

ReviewSurgical endoscopy2010

Appropriate management of common bile duct stones: a RAND Corporation/UCLA Appropriateness Method statistical analysis.

Pablo Parra-Membrives, Daniel Díaz-Gómez, Román Vilegas-Portero, Máximo Molina-Linde, Lourdes Gómez-Bujedo, Juan Ramón Lacalle-Remigio

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Results of treatment of patients with gallstone disease and ductal calculi by single-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy and bile duct exploration.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2014
    Article
  9. Modern approach to cholecysto-choledocholithiasis.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2014
    Review
  10. Review
  11. [Robotic hepatobiliary and gastric surgery].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2013
    Review
  12. Article
  13. MRCP is not a cost-effective strategy in the management of silent common bile duct stones.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2013
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Pablo Parra-MembrivesHepato-bilio-pancreatic Surgery Unit of the General and Digestive Surgery Department, Valme University Hospital, 41014 Sevilla, Spain. pabloparra@aecirujanos.es
Daniel Díaz-Gómez
Román Vilegas-Portero
Máximo Molina-Linde
Lourdes Gómez-Bujedo
Juan Ramón Lacalle-Remigio
Andalusian Agency for Healthcare Quality · ESHospital Universitario de Valme · ESUniversidad de Sevilla · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBile duct stones affect 10% of patients who undergo a cholecystectomy and therefore represent a major health problem. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, endoscopic sphincterotomy, and open surgical choledocholithotomy are the three available methods for dealing with choledocholithiasis. Though many trials and reviews have compared all three strategies, a list of indications for defined patient profiles is lacking.

methodsWe employed the RAND Corporation/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) to evaluate the three procedures for bile duct stone clearance. An expert panel judged appropriateness after a comprehensive bibliography review, a first-round private rating of 108 different clinical situations, a consensus meeting, and a second round of definitive rating. A list of indications for each procedure was statistically calculated.

resultsA consensus was reached for 41 indications (38%). The endoscopic approach was always appropriate for preoperatively diagnosed bile duct stones and inappropriate for patients with single intraoperative detected stones causing cholangitis and bile duct dilatation. Laparoscopic bile duct exploration was appropriate for preoperatively diagnosed choledocholithiasis if patients had not undergone a previous cholecystectomy and no signs of cholangitis were detected. The laparoscopic approach was also appropriate for intraoperatively incidentally detected stones, except for septic patients with poor performance status and multiple calculi. Laparoscopic bile duct clearance was judged inappropriate for septic patients with poor performance status and absence of bile duct dilatation. Open surgery was appropriate in all patients with intraoperative diagnosis of choledocholithiasis and cholangitis and in septic patients with bile duct dilatation. There was no clinical situation in which open surgery was appropriate when bile duct stones were preoperatively diagnosed.

conclusionsThere is still uncertainty with respect to the management of choledocholithiasis, showing the need for further investigation. The RAM helps to elucidate appropriateness for the different treatment options in specific clinical settings.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicGallstonesHumansTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID19915905
OpenAlexW1995152042

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.