Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 328

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Laparoscopic compared with open methods of groin hernia repair: systematic review of randomized controlled trials

EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration, Grant, A·2000·Journal of British Surgery

Abstract

Background: The place of laparoscopic groin hernia repair remains controversial. Individual randomized controlled trials alone have not provided statistically reliable results when considering recurrence, potentially serious complications and chronic pain. Methods: A rigorous systematic review was performed of published data from all relevant randomized or quasi-randomized trials. Electronic databases were searched and members of the EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration consulted to identify trials. Prespecified data items were extracted from reports and, where possible, quantitative meta-analysis was performed. Results: Thirty-four published reports of eligible trials were included, involving 6804 participants. Sample sizes ranged from 20 to 1051, with follow-up from 6 weeks to 36 months. Duration of operation was longer in the laparoscopic groups (P < 0·001, Sign test). Operative complications were uncommon for both methods, but visceral and vascular injuries were more frequent in the laparoscopic group (4·7 per 1000 versus 1·1 per 1000). Postoperative pain was less among laparoscopic groups (P = 0·08). Length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between groups (P = 0·50), but return to usual activity was earlier for laparoscopic groups (P < 0·001). Chronic pain and numbness were reported for only a small minority of trials. Overall, recurrences did not differ between groups, but comparison of laparoscopic with open non-mesh repair favoured laparoscopic methods, significantly so for transabdominal preperitoneal repair (Peto odds ratio 0·56 (95 per cent confidence interval 0·33–0·93); P = 0·026). Conclusion: Although the rigorous search maximized trial identification, variation in trial reporting made formal meta-analysis difficult. Laparoscopic repair was associated with less postoperative pain and more rapid return to normal activities, but it takes longer to perform and may increase the risk of rare, but serious, complications.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01540.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 328

Metadata

Authors
EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration, & Grant, A.
Venue
Journal of British Surgery
Published
2000-07-01
Volume
87
Issue
7
Pages
860-867
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W1962803928
Cited by
328
References
1
FWCI
4.08
Type
journal article
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: Laparoscopic compared with open methods of groin hernia repair: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01540.x
The paper
EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration, & Grant, A. (2000). Laparoscopic compared with open methods of groin hernia repair: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Journal of British Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01540.x

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.