SynthesisBMJ clinical evidence2011
Acute cholecystitis.
Synthesis in BMJ clinical evidence, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The critical view of safety during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Strasberg Yes or No? An Italian Multicentre study.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Effectiveness of a quality improvement collaborative in reducing time to surgery for patients requiring emergency cholecystectomy.BJS open · 2019Article
- Surgical management of acute cholecystitis in a nationwide Danish cohort.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2019Article
- Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasound and CT in Evaluating Acute Cholecystitis.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2018Article
- Patients' experiences with cholecystitis and a cholecystectomy.Gastroenterology nursing : the official journal of the Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and AssociatesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOf people admitted to hospital for biliary tract disease, 20% have acute cholecystitis. Up to the age of 50 years, acute calculous cholecystitis is three times more common in women than in men, and about 1.5 times more common in women than in men thereafter. About 95% of people with acute cholecystitis have gallstones. Optimal therapy for acute cholecystitis, based on timing and severity of presentation, remains controversial. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for acute cholecystitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
resultsWe found 17 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
conclusionsIn this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: early cholecystectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy, observation alone, open cholecystectomy, and percutaneous cholecystostomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22186260PMC3275134W4299611958What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.