SynthesisBMJ open gastroenterology2022
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.
Synthesis in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of Ezetimibe plus statin lipid-lowering therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-utility studies.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Landscape Analysis of Literature Using Quantitative Approaches to Synthesize Economic Evaluation Studies: A Scoping Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
- Association of the Triglyceride-Glucose Index With Gallstone Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Review
- Asymptomatic gallstone disease: Re-evaluating the threshold for surgical options in the era of precision medicine.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- Article
- Assessment of Postoperative Complications and Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Biliary Disease in a Tertiary Care Hospital: A Review of Clinical and Radiological Burden.Cureus · 2024Article
- Assessment of Gallbladder Drainage Methods in the Treatment of Acute Cholecystitis: A Literature Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCholecystectomy is a standard treatment in the management of symptomatic gallstone disease. Current literature has contradicting views on the cost-effectiveness of different cholecystectomy treatments. We have conducted a systematic reappraisal of literature concerning the cost-effectiveness of cholecystectomy in management of gallstone disease.
methodsWe systematically searched for economic evaluation studies from PubMed, Embase and Scopus for eligible studies from inception up to July 2020. We pooled the incremental net benefit (INB) with a 95% CI using a random-effects model. We assessed the heterogeneity using the Cochrane-Q test, I
resultsWe have selected 28 studies for systematic review from a search that retrieved 8710 studies. Among them, seven studies were eligible for meta-analysis, all from high-income countries (HIC). Studies mainly reported comparisons between surgical treatments, but non-surgical gallstone disease management studies were limited. The early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) was significantly more cost-effective compared with the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DLC) with an INB of US$1221 (US$187 to US$2255) but with high heterogeneity (I
conclusionELC is more cost-effective than DLC in the treatment of gallstone disease or cholecystitis in HICs. There was insufficient literature on comparison with other treatment options, such as conservative management and limited evidence from other economies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020194052.
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.