Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30618417›Full record

ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery

Meta-analysis of single-stage versus two-staged management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones.

Zhi-Qing Li, Ji-Xia Sun, Bin Li, Xue-Qiang Dai, An-Xing Yu, Zhe-Fu Li

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of minimal access surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Comparing One-Stage vs Two-Stage Approaches for the Management of Choledocholithiasis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhi-Qing LiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Pingdu City People's Hospital, Weifang Medical College, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, China.
Ji-Xia SunQingdao Central Hospital, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, China.
Bin LiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Pingdu City People's Hospital, Weifang Medical College, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, China.
Xue-Qiang DaiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Pingdu City People's Hospital, Weifang Medical College, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, China.
An-Xing YuDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Pingdu City People's Hospital, Weifang Medical College, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, China.
Zhe-Fu LiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Pingdu City People's Hospital, Weifang Medical College, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, China.
Qingdao Municipal Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this article was to compare the effectiveness and safety of single-stage (laparoscopic cholecystectomy [LC] plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration [LCBDE]) with two-stage (LC plus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)/endoscopic sphincterotomy [EST]) in management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct (CBD) stones. MATERIALS AND

methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes following single-stage with two-stage management for concomitant gallstones and CBD stones published from 1990 to 2017 in PubMed, Embase and the Science Citation Index. The primary outcomes were stone clearance from the CBD, post-operative morbidity and mortality. The secondary outcomes were retained stone, conversion to other procedures, length of hospital stay and total operating time. Pooled risk ratio (RR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using either the fixed effects model or random effects model.

resultsEleven RCTs studies were included in this analysis. These studies included a total of 1338 patients: 666 underwent LC + LCBDE and 672 underwent LC + ERCP/EST. The meta-analysis showed that no significant difference was noted between the two groups regarding CBD stone clearance (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.99-1.14; P= 0.12), post-operative morbidity (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.79-1.34; P= 0.81), mortality (RR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.06-1.41; P= 0.13), retained stone (RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.57-1.47; P= 0.71), conversion to other procedures (RR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.55-0.16; P= 0.23), length of hospital stay (WMD: 1.24, 95% CI: 3.57-1.09, P= 0.30), total operating time (WMD: 25.42, 95% CI: 22.38-73.22, P= 0.30).

conclusionSingle-stage is efficient and safe in the treatment of patients with concomitant gallstones and CBD stones while avoiding the second procedure. In selected patients, single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and CBD stones might be considered as the preferred approach. However, the findings have to be carefully interpreted due to the existence of heterogeneity, in addition, patient's condition, operator's experience also should be taken into account in making treatment decisions.

Indexed as

Common bile duct stonesendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyendoscopic sphincterotomygallstoneslaparoscopic cholecystectomylaparoscopic common bile duct explorationmeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID30618417
PMCPMC7440024
OpenAlexW2907334186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.