↓ Skip to main content

Cholecystectomy vs. percutaneous cholecystostomy for the management of critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis: a protocol for a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
Cholecystectomy vs. percutaneous cholecystostomy for the management of critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis: a protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0065-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter C. Ambe, Sarantos Kaptanis, Marios Papadakis, Sebastian A. Weber, Hubert Zirngibl

Abstract

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. 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. This systematic review aims at identifying and evaluating the clinical value of percutaneous cholecystostomy in the management of critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis. PROSPERO CRD42015016205.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 80 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 14%
Other 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 11%
Researcher 9 11%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 19 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 60%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Materials Science 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 21 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 June 2015.
All research outputs
#13,436,543
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,421
of 1,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,905
of 267,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#22
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,995 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 267,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.