Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35756417›Full record

SynthesisComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2022

Laparoscopic versus Conventional Surgery for Acute Cholangitis of Severe Type: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Fang Zhang, Jianjiang Huang, Jie Yang, Yuyu Wang, Bin Qiu

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fang ZhangCritical Care Medicine, Shengzhou People's Hospital (The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University Shengzhou Branch), Zhejiang Province 312400, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2682-4553
Jianjiang HuangCritical Care Medicine, Shengzhou People's Hospital (The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University Shengzhou Branch), Zhejiang Province 312400, China.
Jie YangCritical Care Medicine, Shengzhou People's Hospital (The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University Shengzhou Branch), Zhejiang Province 312400, China.
Yuyu WangCritical Care Medicine, Shengzhou People's Hospital (The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University Shengzhou Branch), Zhejiang Province 312400, China.
Bin QiuCritical Care Medicine, Shengzhou People's Hospital (The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University Shengzhou Branch), Zhejiang Province 312400, China.
Sheng Jing Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Currently, the choice between laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparotomy in the surgical treatment of acute cholangitis of severe type (ACST) is debatable. This study compared the clinical efficacy of these two surgical methods through a meta-analysis based on relevant clinical randomized controlled trials (RCT) on ACST. Methods: We systematically searched several databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WangFang) for RCT on the surgical treatment of ACST between 2010 and 2022. Relevant data were extracted, and a meta-analysis was performed using the statistical software Stata 16.0. Results: From initial 1089 studies retrieved, 15 studies ( Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgery was associated with significant improvement in treatment efficiency, reduced risk of complications, and better treatment outcomes in patients with ACST.

Indexed as

CholangitisLaparoscopyChinaHumansPostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID35756417
PMCPMC9225883
OpenAlexW4283008409

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.