Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36278995›Full record

ReviewSurgical endoscopy2023

Minimally invasive management of concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones: an updated network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Jisheng Zhu, Guiyan Wang, Bin Xie, Zhengying Jiang, Weidong Xiao, Yong Li

Abstract readReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jisheng Zhu *Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwai Zhengjie, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Guiyan Wang *Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwai Zhengjie, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Bin XieDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwai Zhengjie, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Zhengying JiangDepartment of Burn, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwai Zhengjie, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Weidong XiaoDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwai Zhengjie, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Yong LiDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwai Zhengjie, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China. cdyfyly@126.com.
First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University · CNNanchang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo update a 2018 meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy and safety of four surgical techniques in patients with concomitant gallstones and common bile duct (CBD) stones.

methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), LC plus preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (PreERCP), LC plus intraoperative ERCP (IntraERCP), and LC plus postoperative ERCP (PostERCP) were included. Primary and secondary outcomes were compared using odds ratio, weighted mean difference, and 95% confidence intervals.

resultsTwenty-five RCTs involved 3145 patients were included. Of these, 1188 (37.8%) underwent LC + PreERCP, 1183 (37.6%) LC + LCBDE, 689 (21.9%) LC + IntraERCP, and 85 (2.7%) LC + PostERCP. This analysis demonstrated that LC plus IntraERCP was the most likely approach to achieve technical success and reduce morbidity. No significant differences were observed between the four treatments concerning major morbidity, mortality, and operative time. LC plus LCBDE was effective for increasing biliary leak and conversion as well as decreasing postoperative hemorrhage and total costs. Additionally, LC plus PreERCP was associated with higher postoperative pancreatitis, while LC plus IntraERCP was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay. There was significant heterogeneity in operative time, hospital stay, and total costs (τ

conclusionsThis analysis provides evidence that LC plus IntraERCP appears to be the optimal strategy for patients with concomitant gallstones and CBD stones owing to its advantage in technical success and morbidity. LC plus LCBDE is associated with higher biliary leak and lower postoperative hemorrhage, whereas LC plus PreERCP is associated with higher postoperative pancreatitis.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicCholedocholithiasisGallstonesPancreatitisCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeCommon Bile DuctHumansPostoperative HemorrhageRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSphincterotomy, EndoscopicCommon bile duct stonesEndoscopicLaparoscopicNetwork meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID36278995
OpenAlexW4307178978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.