Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29847616›Full record

SynthesisJAMA surgery2018

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of 4 Combinations of Laparoscopic and Intraoperative Techniques for Management of Gallstone Disease With Biliary Duct Calculi: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Claudio Ricci, Nico Pagano, Giovanni Taffurelli, Carlo Alberto Pacilio, Marina Migliori, Franco Bazzoli, Riccardo Casadei, Francesco Minni

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudySystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 67 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT04801238 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

preGallstep: One-step Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy, Common Bile Duct Exploration and Stone Extraction Versus Two-step Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography and Stone Extraction Plus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Common Bile Duct Stones

TypeinterventionalSponsorLars Tue SorensenRan2021 to 2024Enrolled150ConditionsPancreatitis, Cholangitis, Cholecystitis, GallstoneArmsLCBDE + LC, ERC + LC
NCT05542784 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Modified Laparoendoscopic Rendezvous for Secondary Choledocholithiasis: a Nonrandomized Controlled Clinical Study

TypeobservationalSponsorShenzhen Second People's HospitalRan2022 to 2025Enrolled90ConditionsCholedocholithiasisArmsModified LERV
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

67 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 138 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Claudio RicciDepartment of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Sant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Nico PaganoDepartment of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Sant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Giovanni TaffurelliDepartment of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Sant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Carlo Alberto PacilioDepartment of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Sant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Marina MiglioriDepartment of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Sant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Franco BazzoliDepartment of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Sant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Riccardo CasadeiDepartment of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Sant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Francesco MinniDepartment of Internal Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Sant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
University of Bologna · ITPoliclinico S.Orsola-Malpighi · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Several techniques are used for surgical treatment of gallstone disease with biliary duct calculi, but the safety and efficacy of these approaches have not been compared. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of 4 surgical approaches to gallstone disease with biliary duct calculi. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Scopus, and ISI-Web of Science databases, articles published between 1950 and 2017 and searched from August 12, 2017, to September 14, 2017. Search terms used were LCBDE, LC, preoperative, ERCP, postoperative, period, cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic, retrograde, rendezvous, intraoperative, one-stage, two-stage, single-stage, gallstone, gallstones, calculi, stone, therapy, treatment, therapeutics, surgery, surgical, procedures, clinical trials as topic, random, and allocation in several logical combinations. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials comparing at least 2 of the following strategies: preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (PreERCP) plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC); LC with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCDBE); LC plus intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (IntraERCP); and LC plus postoperative ERCP (PostERCP). Data Extraction and Synthesis: A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was performed. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to show the probability that each approach would be the best for each outcome. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were the safety to efficacy ratio using overall mortality and morbidity rates as the main indicators of safety and the success rate as an indicator of efficacy. Secondary outcomes were acute pancreatitis, biliary leak, overall bleeding, operative time, length of hospital stay, total cost, and readmission rate. Results: The 20 trials comprised 2489 patients (and 2489 procedures). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus IntraERCP had the highest probability of being the most successful (SUCRA, 87.2%) and safest (SUCRA, 69.7%) with respect to morbidity. All approaches had similar results regarding overall mortality. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus LCBDE was the most successful for avoiding overall bleeding (SUCRA, 83.3%) and for the shortest operative time (SUCRA, 90.2%) and least total cost (SUCRA, 98.9%). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus IntraERCP was the best approach for length of hospital stay (SUCRA, 92.7%). Inconsistency was found in operative time (indirect estimate, 19.05; 95% CI, 2.44-35.66; P = .02) and total cost (indirect estimate, 17.06; 95% CI, 3.56-107.21; P = .04). Heterogeneity was observed for success rate (τ, 0.8), operative time (τ, >1), length of stay (τ, >1), and total cost (τ, >1). Conclusions and Relevance: The combined LC and IntraERCP approach had the greatest odds to be the safest and appears to be the most successful. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus LBCDE appears to reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis but may be associated with a higher risk of biliary leak.

Indexed as

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicCholedocholithiasisCholelithiasisCombined Modality TherapyGallstonesHumansTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID29847616
PMCPMC6137518
OpenAlexW2806491697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.