The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gallstones are present in about 10% to 15% of the adult western population. Between 1% and 4% become symptomatic in a year. Cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstones is mainly performed after the acute cholecystitis episode settles because of the fear of higher morbidity and conversion from laparoscopic cholecystectomy to open cholecystectomy during acute cholecystitis. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to compare the early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (less than seven days of onset of symptoms) versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (more than six weeks after index admission) with regards to benefits and harms. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation IndexExpanded until November 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials comparing early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected the data on the characteristics of the trial, methodological quality of the trials, mortality, morbidity, conversion rate, operating time, and hospital stay from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials with 451 patients randomised: 223 to the early group and 228 to the delayed group. Surgery was performed on 222 patients in the early group and on 216 patients in the delayed group. There was no mortality in any of the trials. Four of the five trials were of high methodological quality. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for any of the outcomes including bile duct injury (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.70) and conversion to open cholecystectomy (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34). Various other analyses including 'available case analysis', risk difference, statistical methods to overcome the 'zero-event trials' showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups in any of the outcomes measured. A total of 40 patients (17.5%) from the delayed group had to undergo emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy due to non-resolving or recurrent cholecystitis; 18 (45%) of these had to undergo conversion to open procedure. The total hospital stay was about three days shorter in the early group compared with the delayed group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy during acute cholecystitis seems safe and shortens the total hospital stay. The majority of the outcomes occurred rarely; hence, the confidence intervals are wide. Therefore, further randomised trials on the issue are needed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Moher, D., Pham, B., Jones, A., Cook, D. J., Jadad, A. R., Moher, M., Tugwell, P., & Klassen, T. P. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(98)01085-x · Cited by 3,560
A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta‐analysis
Macaskill, P., Walter, S. D., & Irwig, L. (2001) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.698 · Cited by 1,286
Intention-to-Treat Analysis: Implications for Quantitative and Qualitative Research
NEWELL, D. J. (1992) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/21.5.837 · Cited by 715
Cited by
Complicated intra-abdominal infections worldwide: the definitive data of the CIAOW Study
Sartelli, M., Catena, F., Ansaloni, L., Coccolini, F., Corbella, D., Moore, E. E., Malangoni, M., Velmahos, G., Coimbra, R., Koike, K., et al. (2014) · World Journal of Emergency Surgery · doi:10.1186/1749-7922-9-37 · Cited by 313
Agresta, F., Ansaloni, L., Baiocchi, G. L., Bergamini, C., Campanile, F. C., Carlucci, M., Cocorullo, G., Corradi, A., Franzato, B., Lupo, M., et al. (2012) · Surgical Endoscopy · doi:10.1007/s00464-012-2331-3 · Cited by 215
Metadata
- Authors
- Gurusamy, K. S., & Samraj, K.
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
- Published
- 2006-10-18
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- CD005440-CD005440
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1945784394
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 4
- Type
- reference entry
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd005440.pub2
- The paper
- Gurusamy, K. S., & Samraj, K. (2006). Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd005440.pub2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.