Cochrane · systematic review · CD005641
T‐tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic 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
4
current version
GRADE rated
4
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 4 · 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 to primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration
Population: laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Serious morbidity (rate) T‐tube drainage vs primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration | Rate ratio 1.59 [0.66, 3.83] | 3 studies · 295 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Serious morbidity (proportion of patients) T‐tube drainage vs primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration | RR 1.86 [0.87, 3.96] | 3 studies · 295 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Operating time (minutes) T‐tube drainage vs primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 295 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hospital stay (days) T‐tube drainage vs primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 295 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |