Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36816010›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in surgery2023

Comparison of one-stage treatment versus two-stage treatment for the management of patients with common bile duct stones: A meta-analysis.

Shanmao Nie, Shangyu Fu, Kaiyan Fang

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06340594 (Single-stage Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Cholecystocholedocholithiasis), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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.

NCT06340594 completednot on this map

Single-stage Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Cholecystocholedocholithiasis: Which to Start With?

TypeobservationalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2021 to 2024Enrolled115ConditionsCholedocholithiasis With Cholecystitis, Biliary StonesArmsLaproscopic cholecystectomy (LC), Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

3 authors.

Shanmao NieDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Luzhou people's Hospital, Luzhou, China.
Shangyu FuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Luzhou people's Hospital, Luzhou, China.
Kaiyan FangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Luzhou people's Hospital, Luzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cholelithiasis is a frequently occurring disease in clinic. Due to changes in people's living environments, dietary habits and the aging population, cholelithiasis incidence is increasing. Currently, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the preferred treatment for gallbladder stones, but the surgical method for patients with choledocholithiasis is controversial. An endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (pERCP) is performed preoperatively, followed by LC as the general treatment method. However, pERCP still has some disadvantages, such as prolonged hospital stay, increased incidence of postoperative pancreatitis, and increased duration of anesthesia. Therefore, intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (iERCP) is proposed. Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of one-stage treatment and two-stage treatment for the management of patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis. Search strategy: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched through October 2022. The search terms include cholangiolithiasis/bile duct stones/calculi, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/ERCP, endoscopic sphincterotomy/EST, laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV), and laparoscopic cholecystectomy/LC. Selection criteria: For the treatment of patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis in adults, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LC with iERCP vs. pERCP followed by LC were conducted. Data collection and analysis: Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers. We used Revman version 5.3 to analyze the collected data. The trials were grouped according to the evaluation results such as the overall mortality rate, overall morbidity rate, clearance rate of choledocholithiasis, incidence of pancreatitis, the length of hospitalization, and the length of operation. Results: 9 RCTs (950 participants) were included in this meta-analyses. The overall morbidity rate in LC + iERCP group is lower than that in LC + pERCP group (RR: 0.57, 95% CI = 0.41-0.79, Conclusion: Our study suggest that LC + iERCP may be a better option than LC + pERCP in the management of patients with both cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis. This procedure can reduce the overall incidence of postoperative complications, especially the occurrence of postoperative pancreatitis. It could shorten the length of hospital stay, reduce postoperative second ERCP rate.

Indexed as

cholangiolithiasisendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyendoscopic sphincterotomylaparoendoscopic rendezvouslaparoscopic cholecystectomy

Identifiers

PMID36816010
PMCPMC9935819
OpenAlexW4319161541

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.