ArticleWorld journal of emergency surgery : WJES2026
Percutaneous versus surgical treatment of acute cholecystitis.
Article in World journal of emergency surgery : WJES, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent meta-analysis by Fanchulli et al. concluded that cholecystectomy (CC) is associated with lower mortality and readmission than percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) for acute cholecystitis, but this interpretation is limited by confounding by indication to management. The pooled evidence in this article consists predominantly of observational cohorts where crude or minimally adjusted comparisons are vulnerable to case-mix imbalance; even the CHOCOLATE randomised trial, which supports laparoscopic cholecystectomy in selected high-risk but eligible patients (ASA III-IV, age ≥ 70 or comorbidity, excluding peritonitis/septic shock), does not validate interchangeability across the broader PC and CC populations synthesised in unadjusted meta-analyses. Future evidence synthesis should prioritise adjusted estimates, stratification by Tokyo severity/ASA class, and, where feasible, individual participant data meta-analysis; clinically, CC remains preferred for appropriate surgical candidates, whereas PC should be reserved as a bridge or salvage strategy in selected high-risk 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.