Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22806509›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2013

Epidemiological study of provision of cholecystectomy in England from 2000 to 2009: retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics.

Sidhartha Sinha, David Hofman, David L Stoker, Peter J Friend, Jan D Poloniecki, Matt M Thompson, Peter J E Holt

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Formal education of patients about to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Cholecystectomy: Advances and Issues.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for giant gall stone: Report of two cases.International journal of surgery case reports · 2020
    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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sidhartha SinhaDepartment of Outcomes Research, St. George's Vascular Institute, London, UK. sidhartha.sinha@nhs.net
David Hofman
David L Stoker
Peter J Friend
Jan D Poloniecki
Matt M Thompson
Peter J E Holt
Churchill Hospital · GBNorth Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust · GBSt George's Park · GBSt George's, University of London · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-CS-011-008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to report the trends in provision of cholecystectomy in the National Health System in England over the 9 year period from 2000 to 2009 and to determine the major risk factors associated with subsequent poor outcome.

methodsThe Hospital Episode Statistics database was interrogated to identify all cholecystectomy procedures for biliary stone disease in adult patients (>16 years). Multivariate regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of in-patient death, 1 year death, conversion to open, major bile duct injury (BDI) requiring operative repair, and length of stay.

resultsA total of 418,214 cholecystectomy procedures for biliary stone disease were identified. Laparoscopic surgery was used in 348,311 (83.3%) cases and increased by 14.6% over the study period. The in-patient mortality rate (0.2%), 1 year mortality rate (1%), proportion of cases converted to open (5.0%), major BDI rate (0.4%), and mean length of stay (3 days) all decreased over the study period. 52,242 (12.5%) cases were carried out during an emergency admission and uptake has remained stable over the decade. Emergency surgery was more likely to be performed at high-volume centres (odds ratio [OR] 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-1.44) and specialist units (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.30-1.35). High-volume centres were more likely to complete emergency cases laparoscopically (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05-1.18). Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that patient- (male gender, increasing age, and comorbidity) and disease-specific (inflammatory pathology and emergency admission) factors rather than hospital institutional characteristics (annual cholecystectomy volume and presence of specialist surgical units) were associated with poorer outcomes.

conclusionsThe provision of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in England has increased. This has been associated with improvements in outcomes such as mortality and length of stay. However, emergency cholecystectomy uptake remains sub-optimal and is more likely to be performed at high-volume or specialist hospitals without adverse outcomes. Further research into the routine provision of emergency cholecystectomy in England is needed in order to optimize patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Age DistributionAnalysis of VarianceCholecystectomyComorbidityConversion to Open SurgeryEmergency TreatmentEnglandFemaleGallstonesHealth Facility SizeHospitals, SpecialHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesLength of StayMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID22806509
OpenAlexW1977025811

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.