Analytical Approach to the Selection of Research Topics for Gallstone Disease and Acute Cholecystitis (an Overview of Cochrane Reviews)

Author:

Panin S. I.1ORCID,Nechay T. V.2ORCID,Sazhin A. V.2ORCID,Puzikova A. V.1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Volgograd State Medical University

2. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University

Abstract

Aim: description of modern methods of statistical evaluation of the world evidence base to determine the direction of promising scientific research in diagnosis and treatment of cholelithiasis and cholecystitis.Materials and methods. The umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the Cochrane Library has been conducted, identifying topics for which further evidence-based research is needed. The information obtained by the Cochrane expert panels through Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA), Diversity-Adjusted Required Information Size (DARIS) calculations, and Z-curve monitoring on benefit, harm, or futility boundary plots is systematized.Results. There were established multidirectional trends and significantly different levels of achievement of evidence-based results. These should be taken into account when determining the prospect of further evidence-based studies. In the context of bile duct injury between early and delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy, number of complications between early and delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy, small-incision cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy, single-port and standard four-ports cholecystectomy and low-pressure laparoscopy the required size of meta-analysis information is unlikely to be achieved — in current versions of Cochrane library DARIS is less than 1 % of required. The same applies to mortality, the probability of developing serious complications and the conversion rate of various minimally invasive procedures, as the required sample sizes (hundreds of thousands of observations) are difficult to achieve — currently range is from 0.03 to 21.9 %. On the contrary, the achieved values from the estimated DARIS in establishing the differences in the duration between minimally invasive surgery options (21.2 to 76 %), in some issues of pain management in the immediate postoperative period (43.6 to 92.6 %) and additional intraoperative anesthesia (13.7 to 14.9 %) and Z-curve monitoring give hope for their achievement in the foreseeable future. There is little prospect of continuing evidence-based studies to determine the need for intraperitoneal anesthetic instillation, differences in the duration of hospitalization after various minimally invasive surgeries, since new information is unlikely to change the conclusions of meta-analyses (the required information size has been achieved by 100 %).Conclusion. It is necessary to take into account the results of a TSA analysis of Cochrane expert groups, when choosing research topics in patients with gallstone disease and acute cholecystitis.

Publisher

Russian Gastroenterolgocial Society

Subject

Gastroenterology,Hepatology,Surgery,Internal Medicine

Reference49 articles.

1. Revishvili A.Sh., Olovyanny V.E., Sazhin V.P., Kuznetsov A.V., Shelina N.V., Ovecnkin A.I. Surgical care in the Russian Federation. Information and analytical collection for 2021. Moscow, 2022. (In Russ.).

2. Nechay T., Titkova S., Tyagunov A., Anurov M., Sazhin A. Modified enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in patients with acute cholecystitis: Efficacy, safety and feasibility. Multicenter randomized control study. Updates Surg. 2021;73(4):1407–17. DOI: 10.1007/s13304-021-01031-5

3. Омельяновский В.В. Методические рекомендации по проведению метаанализа. М., 2017. [Omel'yanovskii V.V. Guidelines for conducting meta-analysis. Moscow, 2017. (In Russ.).

4. Belov Yu.V., Salagaev G.I., Lysenko A.V., Lednev P.V. Meta-analysis in medical practice. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery = Khirurgiya. Zurnal im. N.I. Pirogova. 2018;3:4–15. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17116/hirurgia201834-15

5. Rebrova O.Yu., Fediaeva V.K. The questionnaire to assess the risk of systematic bias in non-randomized comparative studies: The Russian-language version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meditsinskie tekhnologii. Otsenka i vybor. 2016;3(25):14–9. (In Russ.).

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3