Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25539980›Full record

SynthesisSurgery today2015

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy versus conventional 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Chaorong Xue, Bingqiang Lin, Zhengyuan Huang, Zhi Chen

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgery today, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Hybrid appendectomy with classic trocar on McBurney's point.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2018
    Article
  14. 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

4 authors.

Chaorong XueEmergency Surgery, Union Hospital of Fujian Medical University, No.29 Xinquan Road, Gulou District, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China, xcr118@hotmail.com.
Bingqiang Lin
Zhengyuan Huang
Zhi Chen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the efficacy and safety of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and conventional 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy (3-port LA) for appendectomy.

methodsWe searched the PubMed, Embase, Springer link, and the Cochrane library databases up to April, 2014, for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data were pooled by weighted mean differences (WMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

resultsWe found 11 RCTs, with a collective total of 731 patients treated with SILA and 725 patients treated with 3-point LA. Results indicated no significant differences between SILA and 3-port LA in primary outcomes, including wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, and total postoperative complications, and some secondary outcomes, including postoperative pain scores and length of hospital stay. However, SILA was associated with significantly longer operative times (WMD = 6.78, 95% CI = 3.78-9.79, P < 0.00001) and higher doses of analgesia (WMD = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.45-1.47, P = 0.0002) than the 3-port LA.

conclusionAlthough there was no significant difference in the safety of SILA vs. that of 3-port LA, our findings do not support the application of SILA because of its significantly longer operative times and the higher doses of analgesia required compared with those for 3-point LA.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnalgesicsAppendectomyAppendicitisDatabases, BibliographicHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PainSafetyTreatment OutcomeAnalgesics

Identifiers

PMID25539980

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.