Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31911813›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of emergency surgery : WJES2020

Timing of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis revised: Protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis of results.

Giuseppe Borzellino, Safi Khuri, Michele Pisano, Subhi Mansour, Niccolò Allievi, Luca Ansaloni, Yoram Kluger

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of emergency surgery : WJES, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Giuseppe Borzellino1Department of General Surgery, University Hospital of Verona Italy, Piazzale A. STEFANI 1, 37128 Verona, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3378-4548
Safi Khuri2Department of General Surgery, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel.
Michele Pisano1st Surgical Unit, Department of Emergency, Papa Giovanni Hospital XXIII, Bergamo, Italy.
Subhi Mansour2Department of General Surgery, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel.
Niccolò Allievi1st Surgical Unit, Department of Emergency, Papa Giovanni Hospital XXIII, Bergamo, Italy.
Luca Ansaloni4Department of Emergency and Trauma Surgery, Bufalini Hospital, Cesena, Italy.
Yoram Kluger2Department of General Surgery, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel.
Rambam Health Care Campus · ILOspedale Papa Giovanni XXIII · ITOspedale “M. Bufalini” di Cesena · ITUniversity of Verona · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been adopted as the treatment of choice for acute cholecystitis due to a shorter hospital length of stay and no increased morbidity when compared to delayed cholecystectomy. However, randomised studies and meta-analysis report a wide array of timings of early cholecystectomy, most of them set at 72 h following admission. Setting early cholecystectomy at 72 h or even later may influence analysis due to a shift towards a more balanced comparison. At this time, the rate of resolving acute cholecystitis and the rate of ongoing acute process because of failed conservative treatment could be not so different when compared to those operated with a delayed timing of 6-12 weeks. As a result, randomised comparison with such timing for early cholecystectomy and meta-analysis including such studies may have missed a possible advantage of an early cholecystectomy performed within 24 h of the admission, when conservative treatment failure has less potential effects on morbidity. This review will explore pooled data focused on randomised studies with a set timing of early cholecystectomy as a maximum of 24 h following admission, with the aim of verifying the hypothesis that cholecystectomy within 24 h may report a lower post-operative complication rate compared to a delayed intervention. Methods: A systematic review of the literature will identify randomised clinical studies that compared early and delayed cholecystectomy. Pooled data from studies that settled the early intervention within 24 h from admission will be explored and compared in a sub-group analysis with pooled data of studies that settled early intervention as more than 24 h. Discussion: This paper will not provide evidence strong enough to change the clinical practice, but in case the hypothesis is verified, it will invite to re-consider the timing of early cholecystectomy and might promote future clinical research focusing on an accurate definition of timing for early cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicCholecystitis, AcuteTime-to-TreatmentHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicAcute cholecystitisLaparoscopic cholecystectomyMorbidityTiming

Identifiers

PMID31911813
PMCPMC6942279
OpenAlexW3000406873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.