The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the safety and effectiveness of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis
Open accessAbstract
Background: In many countries laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis is mainly performed after the acute episode has settled because of the anticipated increased risk of morbidity and higher conversion rate from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. Methods: A systematic review was performed with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC; performed within 1 week of onset of symptoms) versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (performed at least 6 weeks after symptoms settled) for acute cholecystitis. Trials were identified from The Cochrane Library trials register, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and reference lists. Risk ratio (RR) or mean difference was calculated with 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.) based on intention-to-treat analysis. Results: Five trials with 451 patients were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of bile duct injury (RR 0·64 (95 per cent c.i. 0·15 to 2·65)) or conversion to open cholecystectomy (RR 0·88 (95 per cent c.i. 0·62 to 1·25)). The total hospital stay was shorter by 4 days for ELC (mean difference −4·12 (95 per cent c.i. −5·22 to −3·03) days). Conclusion: ELC during acute cholecystitis appears safe and shortens the total hospital stay.
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
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
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
Wood, L., Egger, M., Gluud, L. L., Schulz, K. F., Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., Gluud, C., Martin, R. M., Wood, A. J. G., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.ad · Cited by 2,538
Self-citationA 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
on behalf of the OPTIMA study group, van Randen, A., Laméris, W., van Es, H. W., van Heesewijk, H. P. M., van Ramshorst, B., ten Hove, W., Bouma, W. H., van Leeuwen, M. S., van Keulen, E. M., et al. (2011) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2087-5 · Cited by 300
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., Samraj, K., Gluud, C., Wilson, E., & Davidson, B. R.
- Venue
- Journal of British Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-01-12
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 141-150
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2083872783
- Cited by
- 366
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 3.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the safety and effectiveness of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.6870
- The paper
- Gurusamy, K., Samraj, K., Gluud, C., Wilson, E., & Davidson, B. R. (2010). Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the safety and effectiveness of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Journal of British Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6870
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.
