ArticleHealth science reports2024
The efficacy and safety of using prophylactic abdominal drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized control trial.
Article in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05267860 (The Efficacy and Safety of Using Prophylactic Abdominal Drainage After Cholecystectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
The Efficacy and Safety of Using Prophylactic Abdominal Drainage After Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Control Trial.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The efficacy and safety of using prophylactic abdominal drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized control trial.Health science reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of prophylactic drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been a routine practice for many years. However, the debate surrounding using it stems from conflicting evidence regarding its potential benefits and risks. Methods: Patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy from February 1, 2022, to November 30, 2022, at Aleppo University Hospital were enrolled according to our previously registered protocol (NCT05267860). Results: This study included 232 patients (117 in the drainage group [DG], and 115 in the non-drainage group [NDG]). There was no statistical difference in the patients' main characteristics, comorbidities, and laboratory findings. The duration of the surgical operation in NDG (mean = 44.92, SD = 1.85) was shorter than in DG (mean 55.14, SD = 2.14), with ( Conclusion: Based on the results of our study, the use of prophylactic drainage was safe, but ineffective, as it did not improve the outcomes statistically significantly or worsen them, which is consistent with previous studies highlighting the need for personalized patient care in this setting.
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.