Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26985813›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2016

Meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopic ultrasonography and intraoperative cholangiography in detection of common bile duct stones.

K N Jamal, H Smith, K Ratnasingham, M R Siddiqui, G McLachlan, A P Belgaumkar

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Views on the use of intraoperative cholangiography.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

K N JamalEpsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust , UK.
H SmithEpsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust , UK.
K RatnasinghamEpsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust , UK.
M R SiddiquiCroydon Health Services NHS Trust , UK.
G McLachlanRoyal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust , UK.
A P BelgaumkarRoyal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust , UK.
Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBRoyal Surrey County Hospital · GBCroydon Health Services NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction During laparoscopic cholecystectomy, intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) is currently regarded as the gold standard in the detection of choledocholithiasis. Laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) is an attractive alternative with several potential advantages. Methods A systematic review was undertaken of the published literature comparing LUS with IOC in the assessment of common bile duct (CBD) stones. Results Twenty-one comparative studies were analysed. There were 4,566 patients in the IOC group and 5,044 in the LUS group. The combined sensitivity and specificity of IOC in the detection of CBD stones were 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83-0.89) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.98-0.98) respectively with a pooled area under the curve (AUC) of 0.985 and a diagnostic odds ratio (OR) of 260.65 (95% CI: 160.44-423.45). This compares with a sensitivity and specificity for LUS of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92) and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.99-0.99) respectively with a pooled AUC of 0.982 and a diagnostic OR of 765.15 (95% CI: 450.78-1,298.76). LUS appeared to be more successful in terms of coming to a clinical decision regarding CBD stones than IOC (random effects, risk ratio: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.93-0.98, df=20, z=-3.7, p<0.005). Furthermore, LUS took less time (random effects, standardised mean difference: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.93-0.98, df=20, z=-3.7, p<0.005). Conclusions LUS is comparable with IOC in the detection of CBD stones. The main advantages of LUS are that it does not involve ionising radiation, is quicker to perform, has a lower failure rate and can be repeated during the procedure as required.

Indexed as

GallstonesCholangiographyCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicHumansLaparoscopyROC CurveUltrasonographyIntraoperative cholangiographyLaparoscopic cholecystectomyLaparoscopic ultrasonographyMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID26985813
PMCPMC5226022
OpenAlexW2300710759

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.