Rhodes 1998.

Methods	Randomised clinical trial comparing LC and lap stone extraction versus LC and postoperative ERCP/ES and endoscopic stone extraction. No protocol violations. Pre‐study power analysis apparently conducted, but details not listed.
Participants	Norwich. UK Study commenced August 1995 and completed August 1997. 80 pts found to have stones and randomised. Inclusion criteria: LC for treatment of symptomatic gallstones with CBDS demonstrated on cholangiogram. Exclusion criteria: Pre‐operative ERCP/ES. No informed consent to proceed to randomisation. Exclusions listed: 8 pre‐operative ERCP/ES, 1 emergency OC and ECD 347 had no stones on IOC. Essential investigations: Pre‐operative USS, IOC.
Interventions	Laparoscopic group: Trans‐cystic stone extraction if CBD < 9 mm diameter. If failed or CBD ≥ 9 mm, stone extraction performed via choledochotomy, followed by stent or T‐tube insertion. Postoperative ERCP required for stent removal. Post‐operative ERCP or open conversion and duct exploration if laparoscopic extraction failed. Endoscopic group: ERCP and ES pre‐operatively. Repeated procedures until ducts clear. Followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Outcomes	Successful laparoscopic clearance, converted to open surgery, median (range) duration of all procedures, median (range) hospital stay.
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not possible.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	None.
Incomplete outcome data	Low risk	No missing data.
For‐profit bias	Low risk	Appears free of for‐profit support.
Other bias	Low risk	None.