ReviewViszeralmedizin2015
Acute Cholecystitis.
Review in Viszeralmedizin, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- What happens after percutaneous cholecystostomy tube for acute calculous cholecystitis?Surgery in practice and science · 2022Article
- Cholecystitis Masquerading as Cardiac Chest Pain: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2021Article
- High Mobility Group box-1 (HMGB1) Protein As a Biomarker for Acute Cholecystitis.Reports of biochemistry & molecular biology · 2019Article
- Clinical and operative outcomes of patients with acute cholecystitis who are treated initially with image-guided cholecystostomy.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2018Article
- Article
- Acute and Chronic Inflammation of the Biliary System.Viszeralmedizin · 2015Article
- Cholecystoparietal Fistula Revealed by an Epigastric Abscess.Case reports in gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment of acute cholecystitis has been controversially discussed in the literature as there are no high-evidence-level data yet for determining the optimal point in time for surgical intervention. So far, the laparoscopic removal of the gallbladder within 72 h has been the most preferred approach in acute cholecystitis.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review by including randomized trials of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.
resultsBased on a few prospective studies and two meta-analyses, there was consent to prefer an early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients suffering from acute calculous cholecystitis while the term 'early' has not been consistently defined yet. So far, there is new level 1b evidence brought forth by the so-called 'ACDC' study which has convincingly shown in a prospective randomized setting that immediate laparoscopic cholecystectomy - within a time frame of 24 h after hospital admission - is the smartest approach in ASA I-III patients suffering from acute calculous cholecystitis compared to a more conservative approach with a delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy after an initial antibiotic treatment in terms of morbidity, length of hospital stay, and overall treatment costs. Concerning critically ill patients suffering from acute calculous or acalculous cholecystitis, there is no consensus in treatment due to missing data in the literature.
conclusionLaparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis within 24 h after hospital admission is a safe procedure and should be the preferred treatment for ASA I-III patients. In critically ill patients, the intervention should be determined by a narrow interdisciplinary consent based on the patient's individual comorbidities.
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.