SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2013
Responsiveness of quality of life instruments for the comparison of minimally invasive cholecystectomy procedures.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-incision laparoscopic surgery through the umbilicus is associated with a higher incidence of trocar-site hernia than conventional laparoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2016Pooled it
- Impact of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) procedures on surgeon stress and workload: a randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Trial
- A Double-Blinded Randomized Trial to Compare the Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Procedures Using Patient-Reported Outcomes.Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2015Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTraditional metrics of postoperative outcomes (morbidity and mortality) are not useful to compare minimally invasive procedures with each other. Patient reported outcomes, such as quality of life (QOL) scores, offer an alternative approach. Compared with a large body of data in cancer treatment, the responsiveness of these instruments for minimally invasive surgery is not well described. To better define expected differences, we analyzed the reported QOL outcomes in randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) comparing single and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
methodsSearching Medline, Embase, Psychinfo, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library (1946 to Jan 2012), two independent reviewers identified RCTs comparing single with four-port cholecystectomy in adult patients using perioperative QOL assessments. The quality of the studies was assessed regarding trial design and QOL reporting. RevMan was used for mathematical analysis of the pooled outcome data using a random-effects model. Standardized mean difference estimation was utilized when pooling studies reporting different QOL tools. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using χ(2) and I(2).
resultsOf 743 citations, 37 RCTs were identified. Five studies with a total of 502 patients compared single with four-port cholecystectomy on QOL and were included. Pooled analysis was performed using preoperative and 1-month postoperative outcomes. At 1 month postoperatively, the reported effect size of perioperative QOL changes was up to 5 points (~1/2 SD) on the global SF 12 score. The largest difference in change of perioperative physical functioning was 9.9 points (~1 SD). No difference between the treatments was demonstrated.
conclusionsReporting of QOL may improve the comparison of minimally invasive surgical procedures. This systematic review reports clinically important changes and did not demonstrate a difference between treatments at 1 month postoperatively. The optimal timing and trial design for QOL tools in this setting needs to be defined further.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.