ArticleFrontiers in surgery2024
Comparison of the efficacy of LTCBDE and LCBDE for common bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mid-to-long-term follow-up study on the application of cystic duct patency test and cystic duct exploration in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for calculous cholecystitis: Xinjiang-Gu laparoscopic cystic duct exploration.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- METTL3-YTHDF1-driven mMolecular and cellular biochemistry · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration via a cystic duct remnant for post-cholecystectomy residual choledocholithiasis: a case report.Journal of surgical case reports · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the treatment of bile duct stones.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Reclaim the duct! Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for the acute care surgeon.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025Review
- Management of common bile duct stones: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
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: The choice of surgical methods for common bile duct stones (CBDS) is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). Methods: Relevant literature published before March 30, 2023 in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane was searched to screen studies comparing LTCBDE and LCBDE. RevMan 5.4 was used for meta-analysis of fixed-effects and random-effects models. Results: A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 3065 patients in the LTCBDE group and 2,453 patients in the LCBDE group. CBDS clearance was 95.4% (2,682/2,812) in LTCBDE group and 94.7% (1,810/1,911) in LCBDE group (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.36, 2.48, Conclusions: LTCBDE is safe, efficient, and of great clinical significance, and is worth promoting to some patients.
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.