MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S147 Conservative Management Versus Early Cholecystectomy for Gallstone Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2024· article· en· W4403718934 on OpenAlex
Muhammad Ayyan, Samina Khan, David Losier, Anumalasetty Venkata Chandana Heshma, Ayesha Abbas, Iqra Yaseen Khan, Ibtesam Allahi, Ambreen Nabeel, Amna Iqbal, Rehmat Ullah Awan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiliary and Gastrointestinal Fistulas
Canadian institutionsHumber PolytechnicUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCholecystectomyRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisDiseaseGeneral surgeryConservative managementSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: While most individuals with gallstone disease remain asymptomatic, symptoms of gallstone disease range from biliary pain to acute cholecystitis. Surgery is a popular choice of treatment but evidence has also suggested conservative management as a safe and viable approach. We aim to investigate the evidence on conservative management versus early cholecystectomy for the management of gallstone disease. Methods: We searched electronic databases to retrieve and include all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that analyzed the efficacy and safety of conservative management versus early cholecystectomy in the management of gallstone disease. The revised Cochrane “Risk of bias" tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0) was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. We calculated risk ratios (RR) along with the 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for all the outcomes. Results: A total of 11 RCTs were included in our meta-analysis. We found no statistically significant difference between conservative management and early cholecystectomy regarding the incidence of total intraoperative complications (RR 0.45; 95% CI: 0.14-1.42), total postoperative complications (RR 0.85; 95% CI: 0.48-1.50), total surgical complications (RR 0.68; 95% CI: 0.43-1.10), and mortality (RR 1.24; 95% CI: 0.81-1.89). The conservative management group was associated with a statistically significant higher incidence of total biliary complications (RR 3.63; 95% CI: 2.07-6.37), biliary colic (RR 2.75; 95% CI: 1.23-6.15), and common bile duct (CBD) stones (RR 3.96; 95% CI: 1.46-10.71). There was no difference in the incidence of biliary pancreatitis (RR 1.46; 95% CI: 0.49-4.35) and cholangitis (RR 1.52; 95% CI: 0.47-4.89). Conclusion: According to our meta-analysis, the conservative management offers no benefit over early cholecystectomy for gallstone disease and it increases the incidence of biliary complications in patients with gallstone disease. More studies are needed to better ascertain the role of conservative management in the management of gallstone disease (Figure 1).Figure 1.: A. Comparison of incidence of total postoperative complications between conservative management group and early cholecystectomy group. B. Comparison of incidence of total surgical complications between conservative management group and early cholecystectomy group.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.009
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it