Cholecystectomy vs. percutaneous cholecystostomy for the management of critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis: a protocol for a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute cholecystitis is a common diagnosis. However, the heterogeneity of presentation makes it difficult to standardize management. Although surgery is the mainstay of treatment, critically ill patients have been managed via percutaneous cholecystostomy. However, the role of percutaneous cholecystostomy in the management of such patients has not been clearly established. This systematic review will compare the outcomes of critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis managed with percutaneous cholecystostomy to those of similar patients managed with cholecystectomy. METHODS/DESIGN: Systematic searches will be conducted across relevant health databases including the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus using the following keywords: (acute cholecystitis OR severe cholecystitis OR cholecystitis) AND (cholecystectomy OR laparoscopic cholecystectomy OR open cholecystectomy) AND (Cholecystostomy OR percutaneous cholecystectomy OR gallbladder drain OR gallbladder tube OR transhepatic gallbladder drain OR transhepatic gallbladder tube OR cholecystostomy tube). The reference lists of eligible articles will be hand searched. Articles from 2000-2014 will be identified using the key terms "acute cholecystitis, cholecystectomy, and percutaneous cholecystostomy". Studies including both interventions will be included. Relevant data will be extracted from eligible studies using a specially designed data extraction sheet. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale will be used to assess the quality of non-randomized studies. Central tendencies will be reported in terms of means and standard deviations where necessary, and risk ratios will be calculated where possible. All calculations will be performed with a 95 % confidence interval. Furthermore, the Fisher's exact test will be used for the calculation of significance, which will be set at p < 0.05. Pooled estimates will be presented after consideration of both clinical and methodological heterogeneity of included studies. Both interventions would be compared with regard to in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, procedure-dependent complications, re-intervention, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, length of hospital stay, re-admission, and cost of treatment. The review will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. DISCUSSION: This systematic review aims at identifying and evaluating the clinical value of percutaneous cholecystostomy in the management of critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015016205.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.082 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".