Warning: Use of undefined constant ‘WP_POST_REVISIONS’ - assumed '‘WP_POST_REVISIONS’' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/ebrsonline/public_html/wp-config.php on line 89
Gallstone Pancreatitis Admission Versus Normal Cholecystectomy—a Randomized Trial (Gallstone PANC Trial) - Evidence Based Reviews in Surgery - EBRS

Gallstone Pancreatitis Admission Versus Normal Cholecystectomy—a Randomized Trial (Gallstone PANC Trial)

Overview

Featured Article


Mueck K.M, Wei S, Pedroza C et al. Gallstone Pancreatitis Admission Versus Normal Cholecystectomy—a Randomized Trial (Gallstone PANC Trial). Ann Surg 2019; 270(3);519-527

annuals of surgery pack

Expert Reviews


Methodological Reviewer:  Jason Park, MEd, MD, FRCSC, FACS, Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba

Clinical Reviewer: Charles Vollmer, Jr, MD and Fabio Casciani, MD, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine

Clinical Reviewer:  Peter Kim, MD, MSc, FRCSC, FACS, Department of Surgery, University of British Columbia

 

Supplementary Articles


Bhandari M, Guyatt G.H, Swiontkowski, M.F. User’s Guide to the Orthopaedic Literature: How to Use an Article About a Surgical Therapy. J Bone Joint Surg 2001; 83(6):916-926

Ueschel, J. D, Goldsmith C.H, Tandan V.R. et al; for the Evidence-Based Surgery Working Group. Users’ guide to evidence-based surgery: how to use an article evaluating surgical interventions. CJS 2001; 44(2):95-100

Guyatt G.H, Sackett D.L, Cook D.J;  for the Evidence-Based Surgery Working Group. User’s Guides to Medical Literature: II.How to Use an Article About Therapy or Prevention A. Are the Results of the Study Valid? JAMA 1993; 270(21):2598-2601

Guyatt G.H, Sackett D.L, Cook D.J; for the Evidence-Based Surgery Working Group. User’s Guides to Medical Literature: II.How to Use an Article About Therapy or Prevention B. What Were the Results and Will They Help Me in Caring for My Patients? 1994;271(1):59-63

Questions


Please read the above articles and be prepared to discuss the following:

  1. Was patient assignment randomized, and the randomization process “concealed”?
  2. Were all patients who entered the trial accounted for?
  3. Was follow-up adequate? Were patients analyzed according to the “intention to treat” principle?
  4. Were study personnel “blinded” to treatment?
  5. Were the patient groups similar before treatment?
  6. Apart from the experimental intervention, were the groups treated equally?
  7. How large was the treatment effect?
  8. How precise was the estimate of the treatment effect?
  9. Were the study patients similar to my patients?
  10. Were the measured outcomes clinically relevant?
  11. Are my surgical skills similar to those of the study surgeons?
  12. Does the evidence support the conclusions?