The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed operations. Open cholecystectomy has been the gold standard for over 100 years. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was introduced in the 1980s. OBJECTIVES: To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched TheCochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (April 2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1980 to January 2004), Web of Science (1988 to January 2004), and CINAHL (1982 to January 2004) for randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised trials in patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis comparing any kind of laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus any kind of open cholecystectomy. No language limitations were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed selection of trials and data extraction. The methodological quality of the generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up was evaluated to assess bias risk. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Authors were requested additional information in case of missing data. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed when appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-eight trials randomised 2338 patients. Most of the trials had high bias risk. There was no significant difference regarding mortality (risk difference 0,00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.01). Meta-analysis of all trials suggests less overall complications in the laparoscopic group, but the high-quality trials show no significant difference ('allocation concealment' high-quality trials risk difference, random effects -0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.02). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients have a shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference (WMD), random effects -3 days, 95% CI -3.9 to -2.3) and convalescence (WMD, random effects -22.5 days, 95% CI -36.9 to -8.1) compared to open cholecystectomy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were observed in mortality, complications and operative time between laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay and a quicker convalescence compared with the classical open cholecystectomy. These results confirm the existing preference for the laparoscopic cholecystectomy over open cholecystectomy.
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
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
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
Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., & Egger, M. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42 · Cited by 3,309
Lok, A. S. F., & McMahon, B. J. (2007) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.21513 · Cited by 3,087
Kjaergard, L. L., Villumsen, J., & Gluud, C. (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-135-11-200112040-00010 · Cited by 2,283
What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta‐analysis of sparse data
J. Sweeting, M., J. Sutton, A., & C. Lambert, P. (2004) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1761 · Cited by 1,734
Cited by
Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery
Nagendran, M., Gurusamy, K. S., Aggarwal, R., Loizidou, M., & Davidson, B. R. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006575.pub3 · Cited by 593
EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of gallstones
(2016) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2016.03.005 · Cited by 576
Obesity and the risk and prognosis of gallstone disease and pancreatitis
Bonfrate, L., Wang, D. Q.-H., Garruti, G., & Portincasa, P. (2014) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/j.bpg.2014.07.013 · Cited by 125
Metadata
- Authors
- Keus, F., de Jong, J., Gooszen, H. G., & Laarhoven, C. J.
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-10-18
- Volume
- 2010
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- CD006231-CD006231
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- OpenAlex
- W2167327238
- Cited by
- 616
- References
- 77
- FWCI
- 17.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd006231
- The paper
- Keus, F., de Jong, J., Gooszen, H. G., & Laarhoven, C. J. (2006). Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd006231
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.