ReviewEndoscopic ultrasound
Gaps and insights toward evidence-based management for acute cholecystitis patients at high surgical risk.
Review in Endoscopic ultrasound. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute cholecystitis (AC) is one of the most common causes of emergency admission to surgical wards. Since 2007, the Tokyo guidelines have provided valuable insights into severity assessment and paved the way for clinical trials of tailored treatments. Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy is widely regarded as the standard and most frequently performed procedure, the optimal management of AC patients at high surgical risk due to significant comorbidities or advanced age remains a largely neglected challenge. Many existing studies have failed in their aim to optimize the management. In this review, we highlight 5 underrecognized problems in practice: limited evidence base due to lack of prospective research; inconsistent definitions of high surgical risk; the technical "black box" related to gallbladder drainage; limited consideration of patients' values and preferences; and the complexity of managing individuals from special populations. We discuss each of these 5 gaps thoroughly, referring to examples, and propose approaches to overcome these limitations. Our review thus offers new perspectives on standardized management strategies and promote the development of trustworthy guidelines for AC management in patients at high surgical risk. Efforts are particularly needed to conduct more prospective real-world research, standardize the definitions, and enhance communication between patients and healthcare professionals.
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.