The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predictors of common bile duct stones prior to cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The decision of whether or not to investigate for common bile duct stones before cholecystectomy utilizes clinical, laboratory, and radiologic information (indicators). There is tremendous individual variation among clinicians in the criteria used for making this decision. Our aim was to perform a meta-analysis of published data to estimate the performance characteristics of the most commonly used preoperative indicators of common bile duct stones. METHODS: Using predetermined exclusion criteria, we selected articles from a MEDLINE search and bibliographic review. Weighted averages were used to determine summary sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for each indicator for stones. RESULTS: From 2221 citations identified, 22 studies met inclusion criteria. The 10 indicators examined were reported in a common fashion in three or more articles, and could be assessed preoperatively. Seven exhibited a specificity greater than 90%. Indicators with positive likelihood ratios of 10 or above were cholangitis, preoperative jaundice, and ultrasound evidence of common bile duct stones. Positive likelihood ratios for dilated common bile duct on ultrasound, hyperbilirubinemia, and jaundice ranged from almost 4 to almost 7. Elevated levels of alkaline phosphatase, pancreatitis, cholecystitis, and hyperamylasemia exhibited positive likelihood ratios of less than 3. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis has identified indicators for duct stones and ranked them according to likelihood ratios. These findings can be applied as guidelines for whether to investigate for duct stones before 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
Miller, R. G. (1981) · Cited by 3,336
Moses, L. E., Shapiro, D., & Littenberg, B. (1993) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780121403 · Cited by 1,405
Guidelines for Meta-analyses Evaluating Diagnostic Tests
Irwig, L., Tosteson, A. N. A., Gatsonis, C., Lau, J., Colditz, G., Chalmers, T. C., & Mosteller, F. (1994) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-120-8-199404150-00008 · Cited by 753
Gallstones and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Gollan, J. L. (1993) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1993.03500080066034 · Cited by 525
Revised Estimates of Diagnostic Test Sensitivity and Specificity in Suspected Biliary Tract Disease
Shea, J. A. (1994) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.154.22.2573 · Cited by 342
Self-citationUseful Predictors of Bile Duct Stones in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Barkun, A. N., Barkun, J. S., Fried, G. M., Ghitulescu, G., Steinmetz, O., Pham, C., Meakins, J. L., & Goresky, C. A. (1994) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-199407000-00006 · Cited by 327
Multipractice analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 1,983 patients
Larson, G. M., Vitale, G. C., Casey, J., Evans, J. S., Gilliam, G., Heuser, L., McGee, G., Rao, M., Scherm, M. J., & Voyles, C. R. (1992) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/0002-9610(92)90105-z · Cited by 288
A Meta-analytic Method for Summarizing Diagnostic Test Performances
Midgette, A. S., Stukel, T. A., & Littenberg, B. (1993) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x9301300313 · Cited by 156
AUERBACH, P. S. (2009) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-06813-0.50008-0 · Cited by 137
Appraisal of the management of bile duct stones
Johnson, A. G., & Hosking, S. W. (1987) · British journal of surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.1800740703 · Cited by 99
Cited by
Tokyo Guidelines 2018: diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholecystitis (with videos)
Yokoe, M., Hata, J., Takada, T., Strasberg, S. M., Asbun, H. J., Wakabayashi, G., Kozaka, K., Endo, I., Deziel, D. J., Miura, F., et al. (2018) · Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences · doi:10.1002/jhbp.515 · Cited by 1,535
Lammert, F., Gurusamy, K., Ko, C. W., Miquel, J.-F., Méndez-Sánchez, N., Portincasa, P., van Erpecum, K. J., van Laarhoven, C. J., & Wang, D. Q.-H. (2016) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/nrdp.2016.24 · Cited by 822
Manes, G., Paspatis, G., Aabakken, L., Anderloni, A., Arvanitakis, M., Ah-Soune, P., Barthet, M., Domagk, D., Dumonceau, J.-M., Gigot, J.-F., et al. (2019) · Endoscopy · doi:10.1055/a-0862-0346 · Cited by 782
Tokyo Guidelines 2018: diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholangitis (with videos)
Kiriyama, S., Kozaka, K., Takada, T., Strasberg, S. M., Pitt, H. A., Gabata, T., Hata, J., Liau, K., Miura, F., Horiguchi, A., et al. (2018) · Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences · doi:10.1002/jhbp.512 · Cited by 761
ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of choledocholithiasis
Buxbaum, J. L., Abbas Fehmi, S. M., Sultan, S., Fishman, D. S., Qumseya, B. J., Cortessis, V. K., Schilperoort, H., Kysh, L., Matsuoka, L., Yachimski, P., et al. (2019) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2018.10.001 · Cited by 667
Metadata
- Authors
- Abboud, P.-A. C., Malet, P. F., Berlin, J. A., Staroscik, R., Cabana, M. D., Clarke, J. R., Shea, J. A., Schwartz, J. S., & Williams, S. V.
- Venue
- Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1996-10
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 450-457
- ISSN
- 0016-5107 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1969571094
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 1.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Predictors of common bile duct stones prior to cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0016-5107(96)70098-6
- The paper
- Abboud, P.-A. C., Malet, P. F., Berlin, J. A., Staroscik, R., Cabana, M. D., Clarke, J. R., Shea, J. A., Schwartz, J. S., & Williams, S. V. (1996). Predictors of common bile duct stones prior to cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-5107(96)70098-6
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.
