Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25627699›Full record

SynthesisPediatric surgery international2015

Laparoscopic portoenterostomy versus open portoenterostomy for the treatment of biliary atresia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

Ma Lishuang, Chen Zhen, Qiao Guoliang, Zhang Zhen, Wang Chen, Li Long, Liu Shuli

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Pediatric surgery international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.2field-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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Biliary atresia: Where do we stand now?World journal of hepatology · 2016
    Review
  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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ma LishuangDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Capital Institute of Pediatrics, Teaching hospital of Peking University, Yabao Road2#, Chaoyang, Beijing, 100021, People's Republic of China.
Chen Zhen
Qiao Guoliang
Zhang Zhen
Wang Chen
Li Long
Liu Shuli
Peking University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOpen portoenterostomy (OPE) remains the mainstay in treatment of biliary atresia, while during the past several years, the laparoscopic portoenterostomy (LPE) has been widely introduced. However, safety of LPE remains a major concern. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to review the currently available data comparing LPE and OPE.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Ovid, Elsevier, Google Scholar Embase, Cohrane library. STUDY SELECTION: Comparative cohort studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently assessed selected studies and extracted the following information: study characteristics, quality, outcomes data, etc.

resultsEleven studies about the effectiveness of LPE compared with OPE were performed by meta-analysis. Meta-analysis found no significant difference between the two groups in operative time, hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, early clearance of jaundice, cholangitis and variceal bleeding. In addition, the rate of 2-year survival with native liver was significantly high in OPE group than in LPE group.

conclusionLaparoscopic portoenterostomy could not replace open portoenterostomy and open Kasai portoenterostomy remains the gold standard in the treatment of biliary atresia.

Indexed as

Bile DuctsBiliary AtresiaHumansLaparoscopyPortoenterostomy, HepaticTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID25627699
OpenAlexW2094881957

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.