Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jun;33(6):1693-1709.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6532-2. Epub 2018 Oct 24.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery: a systematic review evaluating Cochrane systematic reviews

Brendan M Carr  1   2 , Jennifer A Lyon  3   4 , Jamie Romeiser  1 , Mark Talamini  1 , A Laurie W Shroyer  5
Affiliations

Laparoscopic versus open surgery: a systematic review evaluating Cochrane systematic reviews

Brendan M Carr et al. Surg Endosc. 2019 Jun.

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic surgical procedures (LSP) have grown in popularity due to their purported benefits of improved effectiveness and efficiency. This study summarizes the Cochrane systematic reviews' (CSRs') evidence comparing the use of LSP versus open procedures used for surgical patient management and comparing the CSRs' quality and consistency of LSP evidence reported across time and different surgical specialties.

Methods: The Cochrane Database was searched to identify CSRs comparing LSP versus open procedures; 36 CSRs and 15 CSR protocols were found as of February 16, 2016. Each CSR's clinical outcomes and major conclusions were evaluated; CSR's quality and completeness were assessed using PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria. Overall, CSRs' reporting variations across specialties and trends over time were summarized.

Results: A weighted analysis across all 36 CSRs found improved outcomes with LSP (odds ratio 0.90; 95% confidence interval 0.88, 0.92). Substantial CSR variation was found in the patient inclusion/exclusion criteria and clinical endpoints used. Individually, most CSR analyses showed no significant difference (65.4%) between LSP versus open procedures; 25.8% showed a LSP benefit versus 8.9% an open benefit. As a major conclusion, a positive LSP impact was documented by 8/36 (22.2%) CSRs; but only half of these CSRs decisively concluded that there was a LSP advantage. Undeclared conflicts of interest were identified in 9/36 CSRs (25.0%), raising the potential for a reporting bias. Both CSR variabilities (i.e., missing population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design statements) and PRISMA-related deficiencies were documented.

Conclusions: Overall, CSR evidence supports a LSP advantage; however, clinical decisions must be driven by CSR procedure-specific evidence. Variations and inconsistencies in CSR design and reporting identified future opportunities to improve CSR quality by increasing the methodological transparency, standardizing CSR reporting, and documenting comprehensively any non-financial conflicts of interest (i.e., ongoing research and historical publications) for all CSR team members.

Keywords: Epidemiologic study characteristics; Laparoscopy; Operative; Peer-review; Research; Research design; Review; Surgical procedures.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Palmer R (1962) Essais de sterilisation tubaire celioscopique par electrocoagulation isthmique. Bull Fed Soc Gynecol Obstet Lang Fr 14:298
    1. Gomel V (1974) Laparoscopy. Can Med Assoc J 111(2):167–169 - PubMed - PMC
    1. Semm K (1983) Endoscopic appendectomy. Endoscopy 15(2):59–64 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000100 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J et al (2007) External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS ONE 2(12):e1350 - DOI - PubMed - PMC

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources