SynthesisActa cirurgica brasileira2025
Proper timing or ERCP and cholecystectomy on acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta cirurgica brasileira, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine if endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) should be performed with surgery or as a different step, on acute cholecystitis, and which strategy has the least complications and morbimortality.
methodsVarious databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, clinical trials, Google Scholar) were searched for randomized trials comparing the different timings for ERCP and cholecystectomy. No language or time restrictions were applied. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2.0 (Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2), and evidence certainty evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Data synthesis used R-4.1.0 Project for Statistical Computing for Windows, with meta-analysis via fixed-effects model and I2 for heterogeneity.
resultsEleven studies was used, and meta-analysis was performed independently for each outcome. Different outcomes were evaluated, with preoperative ERCP as an intervention and intraoperative ERCP as the control: length of stays (four trials with mean differences - MD = -1.44; 95% confidence interval - 95%CI -3,87-0,98); bile leak (odds ratio - OR = 0.67; 95%CI 0.11-4.09); cholangitis (OR = 1.32; 95%CI 0.29-5.98); bleeding from sphincterotomy (OR = 0.98; 95%CI 0.20-4.86); wound infection (OR = 0.33; 95%CI 0.04-3.14); incisional bleeding (OR = 0.5; 95%CI 0.04-5.70); elevated amylase activity (OR = 5.22; 95%CI 2.17-12.59); acute pancreatitis (OR = 4.61; 95%CI 1.72-12.38); operative time (MD = -6,26; 95%CI -37.24-24.73); failure rate (OR = 1.74; 95%CI 0.99-3.05); conversion (OR = 1.34; 95%CI 0.6-2.96); morbidity (OR = 2.75; 95%CI 1.7-4.47).
conclusionsRisk of bias was significant due to lack of blindness. The morbidity, pancreatitis, and elevated amylase activity outcomes were the only ones to find statistical significance and favored the intraoperative approach.
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.