Cochrane · systematic review · CD005640
T‐tube drainage versus primary closure after open common bile duct exploration
Gurusamy, KS, Koti, R, Davidson, BR · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013 · Cochrane Library
Hepato-BiliaryAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
5
current version
GRADE rated
5
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 5 · 100%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
T‐tube drainage compared with primary closure for patients undergoing open common bile duct exploration
Population: patients undergoing open common bile duct exploration.
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Peri‐operative mortality T‐tube drainage vs primary closure | RR 2.25 [0.55, 9.25] | 6 studies · 359 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Serious morbidity (rate) T‐tube drainage vs primary closure | Rate ratio 2.19 [0.98, 4.91] | 4 studies · 272 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Serious morbidity (proportion) T‐tube drainage vs primary closure | RR 2.53 [0.29, 21.98] | 1 study · 35 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Operating time T‐tube drainage vs primary closure | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Hospital stay T‐tube drainage vs primary closure | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 333 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |