ReviewCureus2026
Early Versus Delayed Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Acute Calculous Cholecystitis: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute calculous cholecystitis is a common emergency surgical condition, and the optimal timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) remains controversial. Previous meta-analyses have not consistently distinguished evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies or separated postoperative complications from composite strategy-level morbidity. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception through June 2026. Dichotomous outcomes from RCTs were pooled using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model, while observational studies were synthesized narratively. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria (11 RCTs and six observational studies). Meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrated that early LC did not significantly increase conversion to open surgery (odds ratio (OR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-1.38; I² = 0%), bile leak (OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.69-4.66), bile duct injury (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.15-2.48), mortality (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.21-4.17), or postoperative complications (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.38-1.40). In contrast, composite strategy morbidity, which incorporated waiting-period events, was significantly lower with early LC (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17-0.38; p < 0.001; I² = 0%). Total hospital stay was consistently reduced by approximately three to six days across all 11 RCTs. Observational studies supported same-admission surgery but were uniformly at serious risk of confounding. Overall, early LC appears surgically safe and substantially reduces composite strategy morbidity and hospital stays without increasing operative risk. The traditional 72-hour symptom threshold should not be considered an absolute contraindication to surgery. Further high-quality evidence is needed for patients presenting beyond 72 hours, older adults, and severity-stratified subgroups.
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.