SynthesisBJS open2019
Meta-analysis of the cost-effectiveness of early
Synthesis in BJS open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incremental net benefit of cholecystectomy compared with alternative treatments in people with gallstones or cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-utility studies.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2022Pooled it
- Effects of Individualized Nursing Based on Zero-Defect Theory on Perioperative Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.Disease markers · 2022Trial
- Prolonged preoperative length of stay may be associated with an increased risk of complications in patients with acute cholecystitis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Percutaneous cholecystolithotomy and lithotripsy for managing acute calculous cholecystitis in non-surgical candidates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Outcomes after index cholecystectomy: a UK longitudinal multi-centre cohort Study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2023Article
- Evaluating the advantages of treating acute cholecystitis by following the Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18): a study emphasizing clinical outcomes and medical expenditures.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- An analysis of the incidence, causes and preventative approaches to gram-negative bloodstream infections of hepatopancreatobiliary origin.Journal of infection prevention · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) is a common disease across the world and is associated with significant socioeconomic costs. Although contemporary guidelines support the role of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC), there is significant variation among units adopting it as standard practice. There are many resource implications of providing a service whereby cholecystectomies for acute cholecystitis can be performed safely. Methods: Studies that incorporated an economic analysis comparing early with delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DLC) for acute cholecystitis were identified by means of a systematic review. A meta-analysis was performed on those cost evaluations. The quality of economic valuations contained therein was evaluated using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) analysis score. Results: Six studies containing cost analyses were included in the meta-analysis with 1128 patients. The median healthcare cost of ELC Conclusion: Economic evaluations within clinical trials favour ELC for ACC. The limited number and poor quality of economic evaluations are noteworthy.
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.