Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36740708›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2023

One-step laparoscopic cholecystectomy with common bile duct exploration and stone extraction versus two-step endoscopic retrograde cholangiography with stone extraction plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with common bile duct stones: a randomised feasibility and pilot clinical trial-the preGallStep trial.

Anders Kirkegaard-Klitbo, Daniel Mønsted Shabanzadeh, Markus Harboe Olsen, Jane Lindschou, Christian Gluud, Lars Tue Sørensen

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04801238 (preGallstep), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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.

NCT04801238 naunknown statusnot on this map

preGallstep: One-step Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy, Common Bile Duct Exploration and Stone Extraction Versus Two-step Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography and Stone Extraction Plus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Common Bile Duct Stones

TypeinterventionalSponsorLars Tue SorensenRan2021 to 2024Enrolled150ConditionsPancreatitis, Cholangitis, Cholecystitis, GallstoneArmsLCBDE + LC, ERC + LC
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Anders Kirkegaard-KlitboDigestive Disease Centre K, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg, Copenhagen, Denmark. Anders.kirkegaard-klitbo@regionh.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6270-1177
Daniel Mønsted ShabanzadehDigestive Disease Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Markus Harboe OlsenCopenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jane LindschouCopenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christian GluudCopenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lars Tue SørensenDigestive Disease Centre K, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Copenhagen University Hospital · DKBispebjerg Hospital · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

Novo Nordisk Fonden NNF19OC0058479
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) with stone extraction and papillotomy with subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy-the two-step approach-is the standard treatment of common bile duct stones in many countries. However, ERC is associated with a high risk of complications and more than half of patients require multiple ERCs. Meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials find no major differences of the two-step approach in comparison with laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative laparoscopic stone clearance-the one-step approach. Currently, there are insufficient data to ascertain superiority.

methodsThe preGallstep trial is an investigator-initiated, multicentre randomised feasibility and pilot clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment. Eligible patients are patients with common bile duct stones (identified by magnetic resonance cholagiopancreatography), age 18 years or above with the possibility to perform both interventions within a reasonable time. We intent to randomise 150 participants allocated 1:1. The experimental intervention is the one-step approach. This consists of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The control intervention is the two-step approach which consists of ERC plus sphincterotomy (first step) and subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (second step). Feasibility outcomes include the proportion of eligible patients not wanting to participate, reasons for rejection to participate, difficulties during the informed consent procedure, difficulties with randomisation, difficulties with data management, difficulties with blinding patient charts and forms and difficulties with maintaining blinding for the outcome assessors. The primary pilot outcome is the proportion of participants with at least one postoperative complication according to the Clavien-Dindo score grade II and above until 90 days after randomisation. This outcome will be used for a future sample size calculation of a larger pragmatic trial. Further, a range of clinical explorative outcomes will be assessed. DISCUSSION: As no sample size is estimated in this trial, there is a risk of wrongly assessing the effect on the patient-related outcome. The surgical procedures cannot be blinded. However, blinding will be employed in all other aspects of the trial, including the establishment of a blinded outcome adjudication committee with three independent assessors. Heterogeneity in screening, randomisation, diagnostics, treatment procedures, interventions and follow-up across trial sites may cause challenges in conducting a larger pragmatic trial. To monitor inter-site differences, we have implemented a central data monitoring scheme.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identification: NCT04801238 , Registered on 16 March 2021.

Indexed as

Clavien-Dindo classificationCommon bile duct stones (CBDS)ComplicationsEndoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC)Feasibility trialLaparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE)Pilot trialRandomised trial

Identifiers

PMID36740708
PMCPMC9899655
OpenAlexW4319294867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.