ArticleCureus2020
Pre-Operative Predictors of Concurrent Choledocholithiasis in Patients With Acute Calculus Cholecystitis: An External Validity Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Patients that are presented with acute calculus cholecystitis (AC) and elevated liver enzymes markers (LEM), often require evaluation for concurrent choledocholithiasis (CDL). Currently, evaluation guidelines follow the American Society of Gastroenterology Endoscopy (ASGE) recommendations. Objectives The aim of the study was to externally validate both ASGE and the Chisholm predictors in a community hospital patient cohort. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of patients who presented to Ascension Saint John hospital with AC and elevated LEM over a period of two years. Sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were used to test the external validity of ASGE and Chisholm algorithms. Results A total of 132 patients' charts were reviewed, and 87 patients included. Chisholm predictors SEN, SP, PPV and NPV were 50%, 82%, 18%, and 95% respectively versus 100%, 19%, 8%, 100% for the ASGE predictors model. In the ASGE module, SP and PPV can be significantly improved to 60% and 13%, respectively, by changing a few risk categories including age and LEM range. Conclusions External validation of the Chisholm module in our patient cohort showed that it would lead to a low referral rate for unnecessary imaging and thus might be more cost-effective, especially when compared to current ASGE recommendations which would have a higher referral rate. On the other hand, current ASGE recommendations successively labeled all the patients with CDL, while the Chisholm module missed around 50 percent. We also observed that with the current ASGE module, the referral rate for further imaging and diagnostic tests can be possibly improved by adjusting a few of the predictors including the age and the abnormal liver transaminases range, but this observation is arbitrary and will need to be validated in a larger cohort study.
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.