Fewer‐than‐four ports vs four ports: Serious adverse events
It is very uncertain whether fewer‐than‐four ports changes serious adverse events compared with four ports (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Fewer‐than‐four ports vs four ports Serious adverse events · people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. It is very uncertain whether fewer‐than‐four ports changes serious adverse events compared with four ports (very low certainty). Fewer‐than‐four ports versus four ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (2014) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 3.93 [0.86, 18.04] | 7 studies · 634 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fewer‐than‐four ports versus four ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.