Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21966134›Full record

ArticleThe Indian journal of surgery2010

Closure of the Common Duct -Endonasobiliary Drainage Tubes vs. T Tube: A Comparative Study.

Mehmood A Wani, Nisar A Chowdri, Sameer H Naqash, Fazl Q Parray, Rauf Ahmad Wani, Nazir A Wani

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Indian journal of surgery, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 94% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Mehmood A Wani
Nisar A Chowdri
Sameer H Naqash
Fazl Q Parray
Rauf Ahmad Wani
Nazir A Wani
Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For the last century T tube drainage of the bile duct has remained standard practice following choledochlithotomy. It vents the biliary tree, provides route for cholangiography and management of residual stones. However, T tubes are associated with significant complications. This retrospective study compared the use of Endonasobiliary drainage tubes and the T tube in 66 patients who underwent open choledocholithotomy for effectiveness and complications. Both groups were statistically comparable. Only 15.15% patients in the Endonasobiliary drainage group, while 45.45% patients in the T tube group developed complications. Severe complications such as biliary peritonitis and intraperitoneal collections were noted only in the T tube group. The Endonasobiliary drainage tube was removed significantly earlier and patients from this group were discharged earlier as compared to those in the T tube. The Endonasobiliary drainage tube is as effective as the T tube in postoperative biliary drainage and allows cholangiograms to be performed. Its use is associated with less complications and it can be removed safely earlier than the T tube. Thus patients have a shorter time with tubes and can be discharged home earlier.

Indexed as

CholangiogramCholedochlithotomyCholedocholithiasisEndonasobiliary drainage tubeT tube

Identifiers

PMID21966134
PMCPMC3077137
OpenAlexW1967198919

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.