Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24780022›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2014

Prompt laparoscopic cholecystectomy would reduce morbidity and save hospital resources.

B W P Rossi, E Bassett, M Martin, S Andrews, S Wajed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Laparoscopic Training Opportunities in an Emergency Biliary Service.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    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

5 authors.

B W P RossiRoyal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
E Bassett
M Martin
S Andrews
S Wajed

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLimited resources and organisational problems often result in significant waiting times for patients presenting with an indication for cholecystectomy. This study investigated the potential false economy of such practice.

methodsRetrospective analysis of all patients on a waiting list for cholecystectomy between July 2007 and October 2010 was performed. The hospital computer document management system and patients' notes were used to collect data.

resultsA total of 1,021 patients were included in the study; 701 were listed from clinic and 320 were listed following an emergency admission. The median time on a waiting list before surgery was 96 days (range: 5-381 days). Eighty-seven patients (8.5%) had an emergency admission with a gallstone related problem while on a waiting list. This resulted in 488 cumulative inpatient days. There was a significant correlation between increased time spent on the waiting list and increased chance of an emergency admission (p=0.01). Patients added to the waiting list from emergency admissions were more likely to be admitted with complications than those listed from clinic (15.3% vs 5.4%, p<0.01). There was no association between age (p=0.53) or sex (p=0.23) and likelihood of emergency admission while on a waiting list.

conclusionsPrompt elective surgery and same-admission emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy can reduce waiting list patient morbidity and is likely to save resources in the long term.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicElective Surgical ProceduresEmergency TreatmentFemaleGallstonesHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTime-to-TreatmentWaiting Lists

Identifiers

PMID24780022
PMCPMC4574413

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.