ArticleFrontiers in surgery2024
Early vs. interval approach to laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a retrospective observational study from Pakistan.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the preferred treatment for acute cholecystitis (AC). However, the optimal timing for LC in AC management remains uncertain, with early cholecystectomy (EC) and interval cholecystectomy (IC) being two common approaches influenced by various factors. Methods: This retrospective study, conducted at a tertiary care teaching hospital in Karachi, Pakistan, aimed to compare the outcomes of EC vs. IC for AC management. Patient data from January 2019 to September 2019 were analyzed with a focus on operative complications, duration of surgery, and postoperative hospital stay. The inclusion criteria were based on the Tokyo Guidelines, and patients underwent LC within 3 days of symptom onset in the EC group and after 6 weeks in the IC group. Results: Among 147 eligible patients, 100 underwent LC (50 in each group). No significant differences were observed in the sex distribution or mean age between the two groups. The EC group experienced fewer operative complications (12%) than the IC group (34%), with statistically significant differences observed. Nevertheless, no substantial variations in operative time or postoperative hospital stay were observed between the groups. Conclusion: Reduced complications in the EC group underscore its safety and efficacy. Nonetheless, further validation through multicenter studies is essential to substantiate these findings.
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.