Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25270609›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2015

Single port/incision laparoscopic surgery compared with standard three-port laparoscopic surgery for appendicectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

SCARLESS Study Group, Irfan Ahmed, Jonathan A Cook, Anne Duncan, Zygmunt H Krukowski, Momin Malik, Graeme MacLennan, Kirsty McCormack

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

8 authors.

SCARLESS Study Group
Irfan Ahmed
Jonathan A Cook
Anne Duncan
Zygmunt H Krukowski
Momin Malik
Graeme MacLennan
Kirsty McCormack

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZG/2/498Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Medical Research Council G0601938Medical Research Council G1002292
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of single port/incision laparoscopic surgery (SPILS) with standard three-port laparoscopic surgery for appendicectomy in adults. Feasibility data was collected to evaluate generalizability to other single-port techniques such as cholecystectomy.

methodsThis was a single-center, randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized to receive either SPILS or standard three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy. The primary patient-reported outcomes were body image and cosmesis at 6 weeks. The primary clinical outcome was pain at 1-7 days. Secondary outcomes included duration of operation, conversion rates, complication rates, use of analgesia, hospital re-admission rates, re-operation rates, and time to return to normal activities.

resultsSeventy-nine patients were randomized. Sixty-seven completed the day 1-7 diary and 53 completed the 6-week follow-up. SPILS patients answered significantly more favorably to the items in the body image scale [mean (SD) 5.6 (1.0) vs. 7.0 (3.3); -1.4 (95 % CI -2.8 to 1.5; p = 0.03)] and the cosmetic scale [18.9 (4.1) vs. 15.3 (5.8); 3.6 (95 % CI 0.7-6.5; p = 0.016)] compared with patients in the Standard group. The duration of operation was shorter for SPILS, and patients required less morphine in recovery; however, there were no statistically significant differences in other outcomes.

conclusionsPatient-reported body image and cosmesis outcomes were better, and surgical outcomes were similar following SPILS. However, the SPILS procedure is more technically demanding and may not be achievable or necessary in routine clinical care. Further assessment of the findings is needed through larger multicenter studies.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAppendectomyAppendicitisBody ImageCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicEstheticsFeasibility StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntention to Treat AnalysisLaparoscopyMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID25270609
PMCPMC4293491
OpenAlexW2282928331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.