-
Deutsches Arzteblatt International Aug 2016Besides cholecystectomy (CC), percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) has been recommended for the management of critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis. However,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Besides cholecystectomy (CC), percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) has been recommended for the management of critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis. However, solid evidence on the benefit of PC in this subgroup of patients is lacking.
METHODS
In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews, we systematically searched the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus for relevant studies published between 2000 and 2014. Two investigators independently screened the studies included.
RESULTS
Six studies with a total of 337 500 patients (PC 10 045, CC 327 455) were included for meta-analysis. Significant differences in favor of CC were recorded with regard to the rate of mortality (OR 4.28, [1.72 to 10.62], p = 0.0017), length of hospital stay (OR 1.41, [1.02 to 1.95], p = 0.04), and the rate of readmission for biliary complaints (OR 2.16, [1.72 to 2.73], p<0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference between both intervention arms with regard to complications (OR 0.74, [0.36 to 1.53], p = 0.42) and re-interventions (OR 7.69, [0.68 to 87.33], p = 0.10).
CONCLUSION
The benefit of percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) over cholecystectomy (CC) in the management of critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis could not be proven in this systematic review.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Cholecystectomy; Cholecystitis, Acute; Cholecystostomy; Critical Illness; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Incidence; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Readmission; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27598871
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2016.0545 -
Cancers May 2023Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is a rescue technique for patients with malignant biliary obstruction who fail conventional treatment with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is a rescue technique for patients with malignant biliary obstruction who fail conventional treatment with ERCP or EUS-guided biliary drainage. The technique has been successfully employed in the management of acute cholecystitis in patients not fit for surgery. However, the evidence for its use in malignant obstruction is less robust. This review article aims to evaluate the data available at present to better understand the safety and efficacy of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage.
METHODS
A detailed literature review was conducted and several databases were searched for any studies relating to EUS-GBD in malignant biliary obstruction. Pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for clinical success and adverse events.
RESULTS
Our search identified 298 studies related to EUS-GBD. The final analysis included 7 studies with 136 patients. The pooled rate of clinical success (95% CI) was 85% (78-90%, I: 0%). The pooled rate of adverse events (95% CI) was 13% (7-19%, I: 0%). Adverse events included: peritonitis, bleeding, bile leakage, stent migration, and stent occlusion. No deaths directly related to the procedure were reported; however, in some of the studies, deaths occurred due to disease progression.
CONCLUSION
This review supports the use of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage as a rescue option for patients who have failed conventional measures.
PubMed: 37296955
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15112988 -
BMC Surgery Nov 2018The timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) performed after the mild acute biliary pancreatitis (MABP) is still controversial. We conducted a review to compare... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) performed after the mild acute biliary pancreatitis (MABP) is still controversial. We conducted a review to compare same-admission laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SA-LC) and delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DLC) after mild acute biliary pancreatitis (MABP).
METHODS
We systematically searched several databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) for relevant trials published from 1 January 1992 to 1 June 2018. Human prospective or retrospective studies that compared SA-LC and DLC after MABP were included. The measured outcomes were the rate of conversion to open cholecystectomy (COC), rate of postoperative complications, rate of biliary-related complications, operative time (OT), and length of stay (LOS). The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom).
RESULTS
This meta-analysis involved 1833 patients from 4 randomized controlled trials and 7 retrospective studies. No significant differences were found in the rate of COC (risk ratio [RR] = 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-1.97; p = 0.36), rate of postoperative complications (RR = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.67-1.69; p = 0.80), rate of biliary-related complications (RR = 1.28; 95% CI, 0.42-3.86; p = 0.66), or OT (RR = 1.57; 95% CI, - 1.58-4.72; p = 0.33) between the SA-LC and DLC groups. The LOS was significantly longer in the DLC group (RR = - 2.08; 95% CI, - 3.17 to - 0.99; p = 0.0002). Unexpectedly, the subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in LOS according to the Atlanta classification (RR = - 0.40; 95% CI, - 0.80-0.01; p = 0.05). The gallstone-related complications during the waiting time in the DLC group included gall colic, recurrent pancreatitis, acute cholecystitis, jaundice, and acute cholangitis (total, 25.39%).
CONCLUSION
This study confirms the safety of SA-LC, which could shorten the LOS. However, the study findings have a number of important implications for future practice.
Topics: Acute Disease; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Gallstones; Humans; Pancreatitis; Time Factors
PubMed: 30486807
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-018-0445-9 -
Cureus Dec 2023We aim to investigate the potential of laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) as a replacement for intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) in the context of laparoscopic... (Review)
Review
We aim to investigate the potential of laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) as a replacement for intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) in the context of laparoscopic cholecystectomy focusing on various aspects related to both techniques. We made our search through PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus, with the use of the following search strategy: ("laparoscopic ultrasonography" OR LUS OR "laparoscopic US" OR "laparoscopic ultrasound") AND ("laparoscopic cholecystectomy" OR LC). We incorporated diverse studies that addressed our topic, offering data on the identification of biliary anatomy and variations, the utilization of laparoscopic ultrasound in cholecystitis, the detection of common bile duct stones, and the criteria utilized to assess the accuracy of LUS. A total of 1526 articles were screened and only 20 were finally included. This systematic review assessed LUS and IOC techniques in cholecystectomy. IOC showed higher failure rates due to common duct catheterization challenges, while LUS had lower failure rates, often linked to factors like steatosis. Cost-effectiveness comparisons favored LUS over IOC, potentially saving patients money. LUS procedures were quicker due to real-time imaging, while IOC required more time and personnel. Bile duct injuries were discussed, highlighting LUS limitations in atypical anatomies. LUS aided in diagnosing crucial conditions, emphasizing its relevance post surgery. Surgeon experience significantly impacted outcomes, regardless of the technique. A previous study discussed that LUS's learning curve was steeper than IOC's, with proficient LUS users adjusting practices and using IOC selectively. Highlighting LUS's benefits and limitations in cholecystectomy, we stress its value in complex anatomical situations. LUS confirms no common bile duct stones, avoiding cannulation. LUS and IOC equally detect common bile duct stones and visualize the biliary tree. LUS offers safety, speed, cost-effectiveness, and unlimited use. Despite the associated expenses and learning curve, the enduring benefits of using advanced probes in LUS imaging suggest that it could surpass traditional IOC. The validation of this potential advancement relies heavily on incorporating modern probe studies. Our study could contribute to the medical literature by evaluating their clinical validity, safety, cost-effectiveness, learning curve, patient outcomes, technological advancements, and potential impact on guidelines and recommendations for clinical professionals.
PubMed: 38283459
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51192 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Mar 2017Acute cholecystitis (AC) is a common differential for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with abdominal pain. The diagnostic accuracy of history,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute cholecystitis (AC) is a common differential for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with abdominal pain. The diagnostic accuracy of history, physical examination, and bedside laboratory tests for AC have not been quantitatively described.
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic review to determine the utility of history and physical examination (H&P), laboratory studies, and ultrasonography (US) in diagnosing AC in the ED.
METHODS
We searched medical literature from January 1965 to March 2016 in PubMed, Embase, and SCOPUS using a strategy derived from the following formulation of our clinical question: patients-ED patients suspected of AC; interventions-H&P, laboratory studies, and US findings commonly used to diagnose AC; comparator-surgical pathology or definitive diagnostic radiologic study confirming AC; and outcome-the operating characteristics of the investigations in diagnosing AC were calculated. Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated using Meta-DiSc with a random-effects model (95% CI). Study quality and risks for bias were assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.
RESULTS
Separate PubMed, Embase, and SCOPUS searches retrieved studies for H&P (n = 734), laboratory findings (n = 74), and US (n = 492). Three H&P studies met inclusion/exclusion criteria with AC prevalence of 7%-64%. Fever had sensitivity ranging from 31% to 62% and specificity from 37% to 74%; positive LR [LR+] was 0.71-1.24, and negative LR [LR-] was 0.76-1.49. Jaundice sensitivity ranged from 11% to 14%, and specificity from 86% to 99%; LR+ was 0.80-13.81, and LR- was 0.87-1.03. Murphy's sign sensitivity was 62% (range = 53%-71%), and specificity was 96% (range = 95%-97%); LR+ was 15.64 (range = 11.48-21.31), and LR- was 0.40 (range = 0.32-0.50). Right upper quadrant pain had sensitivity ranging from 56% to 93% and specificity of 0% to 96%; LR+ ranged from 0.92 to 14.02, and LR- from 0.46 to 7.86. One laboratory study met criteria with a 26% prevalence of AC. Elevated bilirubin had a sensitivity of 40% (range = 12%-74%) and specificity of 93% (range = 77%-99%); LR+ was 5.80 (range = 1.25-26.99), and LR- was 0.64 (range = 0.39-1.08). Five US studies with a prevalence of AC of between 10% and 46%. US sensitivity was 86% (range = 78%-94%) and specificity was 71% (range = 66%-76%); LR+ was 3.23 (range = 1.74-6.00), and LR- was 0.18 (range = 0.10-0.33).
CONCLUSION
Variable disease prevalence, coupled with limited sample sizes, increases the risk of selection bias. Individually, none of these investigations reliably rule out AC. Development of a clinical decision rule to include evaluation of H&P, laboratory data, and US are more likely to achieve a correct diagnosis of AC.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Cholecystitis, Acute; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Emergency Service, Hospital; Female; Humans; Male; Observational Studies as Topic; Physical Examination; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 27862628
DOI: 10.1111/acem.13132 -
Outcomes of percutaneous cholecystostomy in elderly patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Przeglad Gastroenterologiczny 2021Percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) represents a management option to control sepsis in patients with acute cholecystitis, who are unable to tolerate surgery. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) represents a management option to control sepsis in patients with acute cholecystitis, who are unable to tolerate surgery.
AIM
This review aimed to evaluate the outcomes of elderly patients treated with PC and compare it with emergent cholecystectomy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search of the Embase, Medline Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed. Percutaneous cholecystostomy was used as the reference group, and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for the effect of PC on continuous variables, and pooled odds ratios (POR) were calculated for discrete variables.
RESULTS
There were 20 trials included in this review. Utilisation of PC was associated with significantly increased mortality (POR = 4.85; 95% CI: 1.02-7.30; = 0.0001) and increased re-admission rates (POR = 2.95; 95% CI: 2.21-3.87; < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
This pooled analysis established that patients treated with PC appear to have increased mortality and readmission rates relative to those managed with cholecystectomy.
PubMed: 34584579
DOI: 10.5114/pg.2020.100658 -
Health Technology Assessment... Aug 2014Approximately 10-15% of the adult population suffer from gallstone disease, cholelithiasis, with more women than men being affected. Cholecystectomy is the treatment of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cholecystectomy compared with observation/conservative management for preventing recurrent symptoms and complications in adults presenting with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones or cholecystitis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
BACKGROUND
Approximately 10-15% of the adult population suffer from gallstone disease, cholelithiasis, with more women than men being affected. Cholecystectomy is the treatment of choice for people who present with biliary pain or acute cholecystitis and evidence of gallstones. However, some people do not experience a recurrence after an initial episode of biliary pain or cholecystitis. As most of the current research focuses on the surgical management of the disease, less attention has been dedicated to the consequences of conservative management.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cholecystectomy compared with observation/conservative management in people presenting with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones (biliary pain) or cholecystitis.
DATA SOURCES
We searched all major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Bioscience Information Service, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 1980 to September 2012 and we contacted experts in the field.
REVIEW METHODS
Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies that enrolled people with symptomatic gallstone disease (pain attacks only and/or acute cholecystitis). Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Standard meta-analysis techniques were used to combine results from included studies. A de novo Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the interventions.
RESULTS
Two Norwegian RCTs involving 201 participants were included. Eighty-eight per cent of people randomised to surgery and 45% of people randomised to observation underwent cholecystectomy during the 14-year follow-up period. Participants randomised to observation were significantly more likely to experience gallstone-related complications [risk ratio = 6.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 28.51; p = 0.01], in particular acute cholecystitis (risk ratio = 9.55; 95% CI 1.25 to 73.27; p = 0.03), and less likely to undergo surgery (risk ratio = 0.50; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.73; p = 0.0004), experience surgery-related complications (risk ratio = 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.81; p = 0.01) or, more specifically, minor surgery-related complications (risk ratio = 0.11; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.56; p = 0.008) than those randomised to surgery. Fifty-five per cent of people randomised to observation did not require an operation during the 14-year follow-up period and 12% of people randomised to cholecystectomy did not undergo the scheduled operation. The results of the economic evaluation suggest that, on average, the surgery strategy costs £1236 more per patient than the conservative management strategy but was, on average, more effective. An increase in the number of people requiring surgery while treated conservatively corresponded to a reduction in the cost-effectiveness of the conservative strategy. There was uncertainty around some of the parameters used in the economic model.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this assessment indicate that cholecystectomy is still the treatment of choice for many symptomatic people. However, approximately half of the people in the observation group did not require surgery or suffer complications in the long term indicating that a conservative therapeutic approach may represent a valid alternative to surgery in this group of people. Owing to the dearth of current evidence in the UK setting a large, well-designed, multicentre trial is needed.
STUDY REGISTRATION
The study was registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002817.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Adult; Cholecystectomy; Cholecystitis; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Female; Gallstones; Humans; Male; Recurrence; Treatment Outcome; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 25164349
DOI: 10.3310/hta18550 -
Cureus Oct 2023This systematic review aims to review articles that evaluate the risk of conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy and to analyze the identified preoperative... (Review)
Review
This systematic review aims to review articles that evaluate the risk of conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy and to analyze the identified preoperative and intraoperative risk factors. The bibliographic databases CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, Medline, and PubMed were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Only English-language retrospective studies and systematic reviews with more than 200 patients were included. The time of publication was limited from 2012 to 2022. Our systematic review identified 30 studies with a total of 108,472 patients. Of those, 92,765 cholecystectomies were commenced laparoscopically and 5,477 were converted to open cholecystectomy (5.90%). The rate of conversion ranges from 2.50% to 50%. Older males with acute cholecystitis, previous abdominal surgery, symptom duration of more than 72 hours, previous history of acute cholecystitis, C-reactive protein (CRP) value of more than 76 mg/L, diabetes, and obesity are significant preoperative risk factors for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. Significant intraoperative risk factors for conversion include gallbladder inflammation, adhesions, anatomic difficulty, Nassar scale of Grades 3 to 4, Conversion from Laparoscopic to Open Cholecystectomy (CLOC) score of more than 6 and 10-point gallbladder operative scoring system (G10) score more than 3.
PubMed: 38021611
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.47774 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2023Although the past decade has witnessed unprecedented medical progress, no consensus has been reached on the optimal approach for patients with acute cholecystitis....
Comparison of the safety profile, conversion rate and hospitalization duration between early and delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Although the past decade has witnessed unprecedented medical progress, no consensus has been reached on the optimal approach for patients with acute cholecystitis. Herein, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the differences in patient outcomes between Early Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (ELC) and Delayed Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (DLC) in the treatment of acute cholecystitis. Our protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD42023389238).
OBJECTIVES
We sought to investigate the differences in efficacy, safety, and potential benefits between ELC and DLC in acute cholecystitis patients by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
The online databases PubMed, Springer, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies published between Jan 1, 1999 and Jan 1, 2022.
RESULTS
21 RCTs and 13 retrospective studies with a total of 7,601 cases were included in this research. After a fixed-effects model was applied, the pooled analysis showed that DLC was associated with a significantly high conversion rate (OR: 0.6247; 95%CI: 0.5115-0.7630; z = -4.61, < 0.0001) and incidence of postoperative complications (OR: 0.7548; 95%CI: 0.6197-0.9192; z = -2.80, = 0.0051). However, after applying a random-effects model, ELC was associated with significantly shorter total hospitalization duration than DLC (MD: -4.0657; 95%CI: -5.0747 to -3.0566; z = -7.90, < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION
ELC represents a safe and feasible approach for acute cholecystitis patients since it shortens hospitalization duration and decreases the incidence of postoperative complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=389238, identifier (CRD42023389238).
PubMed: 38148916
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1185482 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2016Cholelithiasis refers to the presence of gallstones, which are concretions that form in the biliary tract, usually in the gallbladder. Cholelithiasis is one of the most... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cholelithiasis refers to the presence of gallstones, which are concretions that form in the biliary tract, usually in the gallbladder. Cholelithiasis is one of the most common surgical problems worldwide and is particularly prevalent in most Western countries.Biliary colic is the term used for gallbladder pain experienced by a person with gallstones and without overt infection around the gallbladder. It is the most common manifestation of cholelithiasis, observed in over one-third of people with gallstones over the course of 10 or more years. Non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been widely used to relieve biliary colic pain, but their role needs further elucidation. They may decrease the frequency of short-term complications, such as mild form of acute cholecystitis, jaundice, cholangitis, and acute pancreatitis, but they may also increase the occurrence of more severe and possibly life-threatening adverse events such as gastrointestinal bleeding, renal function impairment, cardiovascular events, or milder events such as abdominal pain, drowsiness, headache, dizziness, or cutaneous manifestations.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of NSAIDs in people with biliary colic.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), and ClinicalTrials.gov until July 2016. We applied no language limitation.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials recruiting participants presenting with biliary colic and comparing NSAIDs versus no intervention, placebo, or other drugs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (MF and AC) independently identified trials for inclusion. We used risk ratios (RR) to express intervention effect estimates, and we analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects model meta-analyses, depending on the amount of heterogeneity. We controlled random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed the methodological quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve randomised clinical trials (RCTs) met our predefined review protocol criteria for analysis. We found only one trial to be at low risk of bias, considering the remaining trials to be at high risk of bias. The risk of selection bias in nine studies was unclear due to poor reporting, leading to uncertainty in the pooled effect estimates. Five trials compared NSAIDs versus placebo, four trials compared NSAID versus opioids, and four trials compared NSAID versus spasmolytic drugs (one of the 12 trials was a three-arm study comparing NSAIDs versus both opioids and spasmolytic drugs). There were 828 randomised participants (minimum 30 and maximum 324 per trial), of whom 416 received NSAIDs and 412 received placebo, spasmolytic drugs, or opioids. Twenty-four per cent of the participants were males. The age of the participants in the trials ranged from 18 to 86 years. All people were admitted to emergency departments for acute biliary pain. There was no mortality. When compared with placebo, NSAIDs obtained a significantly lower proportion of participants without complete pain relief (RR 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.40; I = 0%; 5 trials; moderate-quality evidence), which was confirmed by Trial Sequential Analysis, but not regarding participants with complications (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15; I = 26%; 3 trials; very low-quality evidence). NSAIDs showed more pain control than spasmolytic drugs (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.71; I = 0%; 4 trials; low-quality evidence), which was not confirmed by Trial Sequential Analysis, and a significantly lower proportion of participants with complications (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; I = 0%; 2 trials; low-quality evidence), which was also not confirmed by Trial Sequential Analysis. We found no difference in the proportions of participants without complete pain relief when comparing NSAIDs versus opioids (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.07; I = 52%), suggesting moderate heterogeneity among trials (4 trials; very low-quality evidence). Only one trial comparing NSAIDs versus opioids reported results on complications, finding no significant difference between treatments. None of the included trials reported severe adverse events. Seven out of the 12 trials assessed non-severe adverse events: in two out of the seven trials, adverse events were not observed, and minor events were reported in the remaining five trials.In addition, we found one ongoing RCT assessing the analgesic efficacy of intravenous ibuprofen in biliary colic.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
NSAIDs have been assessed in relatively few trials including a limited number of participants for biliary colic, considering its common occurrence. We found only one trial to be at low risk of bias. There was no mortality. None of the included trials reported quality of life. The generalisability of the review is low as most of the RCTs included neither elderly people nor participants with comorbidities, who are more prone to complications as compared to others with biliary colic.The beneficial effect of NSAIDs compared with placebo on pain relief was confirmed when we applied Trial Sequential Analysis.The quality of evidence according to GRADE criteria was moderate for the comparison of NSAIDs versus placebo regarding the outcome lack of pain relief and low or very low for the other outcomes and comparisons.We found only one trial at low risk of bias, following the predefined 'Risk of bias' domains. We found the risk of selection bias to be unclear in nine studies due to poor reporting, leading to uncertainty in the pooled effect estimates.
PubMed: 27610712
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006390.pub2