ArticleCureus2025
Enhancing Timing and Referral Pathways for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Two-Cycle Audit.
Article in Cureus, 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
backgroundLaparoscopic cholecystectomy is the definitive treatment for symptomatic gallstone disease. National guidelines recommend surgery within two to six weeks following presentation to reduce complications and unplanned readmissions. This audit aimed to evaluate adherence to local guidance on timing and referral for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and assess the impact of service improvements.
methodsA two-cycle audit was conducted. The first cycle (July-August 2024, n=70) assessed the referral process, pre-assessment clinic (PAC) attendance, and booking timelines. Interventions included a structured cholecystectomy pathway, teaching sessions, and a standardised booking email. The second cycle (July-August 2025, n=50) reviewed outcomes following implementation. Key measures were PAC attendance, surgical booking timeliness, avoidance of unnecessary follow-up, and readmission rates.
resultsIn the first cycle, only 3% had PAC arranged, with a 36% readmission rate. In the second cycle, PAC improved to 16%, follow-ups were avoided in 30%, and readmissions were reduced to 22%. However, booking delays persisted, with 36% scheduled at three months and 40% not booked at all.
conclusionService interventions improved PAC attendance and reduced readmissions; however, delays in surgical booking remain the principal obstacle to achieving timely laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Further integration of the pathway into routine practice, along with addressing theatre capacity constraints, is essential to meet guideline standards and optimise patient outcomes.
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.