↓ Skip to main content

Meta-analysis of outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage versus percutaneous cholecystostomy for the management of acute cholecystitis

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Meta-analysis of outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage versus percutaneous cholecystostomy for the management of acute cholecystitis
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00464-018-6041-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ola Ahmed, Ailin C. Rogers, Jarlath C. Bolger, Achille Mastrosimone, Michael J. Lee, Aoife N. Keeling, Daniel Cheriyan, William B. Robb

Abstract

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage is a novel method of treating acute cholecystitis in patients deemed too high risk for surgery. It involves endoscopic stent placement between the gallbladder and the alimentary tract to internally drain the infection and is an alternative to percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC). This meta-analysis assesses the clinical outcomes of high-risk patients undergoing endoscopic drainage with an acute cholecystoenterostomy (ACE) compared with PC in acute cholecystitis. A literature search was performed using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes of patients undergoing ACE or PC. Results were reported as mean differences or pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). A total of 1593 citations were reviewed; five studies comprising 495 patients were ultimately selected for analysis. There were no differences in technical or clinical success rates between the two groups on pooled meta-analysis. ACE had significantly lower post-procedural pain scores (mean difference - 3.0, 95% CI - 2.3 to - 3.6, p < 0.001, on a 10-point pain scale). There were no statistically significant differences in procedure complications between groups. Re-intervention rates were significantly higher in the PC group (OR 4.3, 95% CI 2.0-9.3, p < 0.001). ACE is a promising alternative to PC in high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis, with equivalent success rates, improved pain scores and lower re-intervention rates, without the morbidities associated with external drainage.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 18%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 20 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 39%
Unspecified 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 19 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 April 2019.
All research outputs
#4,717,970
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#798
of 6,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,357
of 437,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#35
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,107 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.