Cochrane · systematic review · CD006004

Routine abdominal drainage versus no abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy

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
7
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 7 · 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

Routine abdominal drain versus 'no drain' for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Population: patients with laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
7 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Mortality
Routine abdominal drain vs 'no drain'
RR 0.41 [0.04, 4.37]10 studies · 1681 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias
Serious adverse events (proportion of patients)
Routine abdominal drain vs 'no drain'
RR 2.12 [0.67, 6.4]7 studies · 1143 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias
Serious adverse events (number of events)
Routine abdominal drain vs 'no drain'
rate ratio 1.6 [0.66, 3.87]8 studies · 1286 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias
Quality of life Psychosocial Adjustment To Illness Scale Self‐Report version (PAIS‐SR)
Routine abdominal drain vs 'no drain'
no estimate extracted1 study · 93 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias
Same day discharge
Routine abdominal drain vs 'no drain'
RR 0.05 [0, 0.75]1 study · 68 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias
Hospital stay
Routine abdominal drain vs 'no drain'
no estimate extracted4 studies · 419 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias
Operating time
Routine abdominal drain vs 'no drain'
no estimate extracted6 studies · 745 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias