ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Optimising the management of patients with cholecystitis and suspected common bile duct stones: an external validation of current prediction models.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying patients with common bile duct (CBD) stones in the setting of acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) is challenging. Three prediction models were previously developed to streamline this process. This study externally validates these models and evaluates whether a new model is needed.
methodsIn this retrospective single-centre cohort study, patients who underwent early cholecystectomy for ACC between 2015 and 2021 were included. The previously published models were assessed for discriminative performance, calibration, and two pre-defined evaluation criteria. These criteria, based on an expert survey and Dutch diagnostic practice, were: 1) a positive predictive value (PPV) ≥ 75% for high-risk patients (indicating the need for direct ERCP), and 2) < 10% of patients assigned to either intermediate or high-risk (indicating the need for additional diagnostics to investigate the CBD). If either criterion was not met, the model was considered insufficient, and the development of a new model was pursued.
resultsOf 1016 patients, 74 (7%) had confirmed CBD stones. Among those, 28 were diagnosed immediately on presentation via initial imaging for ACC. This left an at-risk population of 988 patients, 46 (5%) of whom were ultimately diagnosed with CBD stones. Chisholm's model performed best (c-statistic: 0.89, 95%CI: 0.83-0.94) but failed to meet the criteria (50% PPV for high-risk patients and 14% assigned to intermediate or high-risk). The models by Khoury and Reddy showed PPVs of 56% and 34%, respectively. Consequently, a new prediction model was developed incorporating AST, ALP and CBD diameter (c-statistic: 0.90, 95%CI: 0.85-0.95) that met the criteria, achieving a 75% PPV for high-risk patients and assigning 8% of patients to intermediate or high-risk.
conclusionExisting CBD stone prediction models demonstrate insufficient efficiency in the work-up of ACC patients. A new model using AST, ALP and CBD diameter was developed, which had superior characteristics when applied to the current data set.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41136654What 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.