Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34187817›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Randomised controlled trial to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of expectant management versus preoperative imaging with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in patients with symptomatic gallbladder disease undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy at low or moderate risk of common bile duct stones (The Sunflower Study): a study protocol.

Madeleine Clout, Jane Blazeby, Chris Rogers, Barnaby Reeves, Michelle Lazaroo, Kerry Avery, Natalie S Blencowe, Ravi Vohra, Neil Jennings, William Hollingworth and 12 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Madeleine CloutClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, University of Bristol Faculty of Medical and Veterinary Sciences, Bristol, UK madeleine.clout@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7645-1199
Jane BlazebyCentre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3354-3330
Chris RogersClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, University of Bristol Faculty of Medical and Veterinary Sciences, Bristol, UK.
Barnaby ReevesClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, University of Bristol Faculty of Medical and Veterinary Sciences, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5101-9487
Michelle LazarooClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, University of Bristol Faculty of Medical and Veterinary Sciences, Bristol, UK.
Kerry AveryCentre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5477-2418
Natalie S BlencoweCentre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6111-2175
Ravi VohraTrent Oesophago-Gastric Unit, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK.
Neil JenningsBariatric Unit, Department of Surgery, Sunderland Royal Hospital, Sunderland, UK.
William HollingworthSchool of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Joanna ThornSchool of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8962-2428
Marcus JepsonSchool of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jane CollingwoodSchool of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Ashley GuthrieClinical Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Elizabeth BoothNHS Coventry and Rugby Clinical Commissioning Group, Coventry, UK.
Samir PathakCentre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Ian BeckinghamDivision of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Lucy CullifordClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, University of Bristol Faculty of Medical and Veterinary Sciences, Bristol, UK.
Ewen A GriffithsDepartment of Upper GI Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Raneem AlbazazClinical Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Giles ToogoodDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Transplantation Surgery, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Sunflower Study Executive Group
University of Bristol · GBLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GBCoventry (United Kingdom) · GBNottingham City Hospital · GBNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBSunderland Royal Hospital · GBUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/S001751/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSurgery to remove the gallbladder (laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)) is the standard treatment for symptomatic gallbladder disease. One potential complication of gallbladder disease is that gallstones can pass into the common bile duct (CBD) where they may remain dormant, pass spontaneously into the bowel or cause problems such as obstructive jaundice or pancreatitis. Patients requiring LC are assessed preoperatively for their risk of CBD stones using liver function tests and imaging. If the risk is high, guidelines recommend further investigation and treatment. Further investigation of patients at low or moderate risk of CBD stones is not standardised, and the practice of imaging the CBD using magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in these patients varies across the UK. The consequences of these decisions may lead to overtreatment or undertreatment of patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are conducting a UK multicentre, pragmatic, open, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot phase to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of preoperative imaging with MRCP versus expectant management (ie, no preoperative imaging) in adult patients with symptomatic gallbladder disease undergoing urgent or elective LC who are at low or moderate risk of CBD stones. We aim to recruit 13 680 patients over 48 months. The primary outcome is any hospital admission within 18 months of randomisation for a complication of gallstones. This includes complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for the treatment of gallstones and complications of LC. This will be determined using routine data sources, for example, National Health Service Digital Hospital Episode Statistics for participants in England. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness and patient-reported quality of life, with participants followed up for a median of 18 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received approval from Yorkshire & The Humber - South Yorkshire Research Ethics Committee. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10378861.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicCholedocholithiasisGallstonesAdultCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeCholangiopancreatography, Magnetic ResonanceCommon Bile DuctCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicPragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicState MedicineWatchful Waitingclinical trialsendoscopygastroenterologymagnetic resonance imagingnephrologysurgery

Identifiers

PMID34187817
PMCPMC8245448
OpenAlexW3175287164

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.