Rabago 2006.

Methods	Parallel randomised controlled clinical trial Randomisation ratio: superiority design
Participants	123 patients referred for laparoscopic cholecystectomy; mean age not reported; sex not reported; total bilirubin: intraoperative ERCP: 3.1 mg/dl (SD 2.9), pre‐operative ERCP: 2.0 mg/dl (SD 2.0); GGT: intraoperative ERCP 441 IU (SD 326 IU), pre‐operative ERCP: 334 IU (SD 281 IU) Inclusion criteria: people with intermediate risk of choledocholithiasis; one of the following major screening criteria: recent episode of cholangitis; bilirubin level > 3.5 mg/dl, or ultrasound evidence of a shadowing object within the bile duct; or at least two of the following minor screening criteria: recent episode of acute pancreatitis, cholecystitis or jaundice; elevated liver function tests above the normal limits; or a dilated common bile duct > 8 mm on ultrasound Exclusion criteria: age > 18 years to < 80 years Diagnostic criteria: gallbladder and main bile duct stones were detected by transabdominal ultrasound. Computed tomography or MRCP were optional, and rarely used in either study group.
Interventions	Number of study centres: one Treatment before study: not reported Type of interventions: 59 participants treated in a single step with videolaparoscopic cholecystectomy, intraoperative cholangiography, and endoscopic sphincterotomy during the surgical procedure with the rendezvous technique versus 64 treated with preoperative ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy performed using a traditional method of bile duct cannulation.
Outcomes	Success rate (on an intention‐to‐treat basis), total morbidity (mild to moderate morbidity, severe morbidity), post‐ERCP morbidity (mild to moderate morbidity, severe morbidity), post‐ERCP acute pancreatitis, post‐ERCP cholecystitis, post‐ERCP cholangitis, post‐ERCP papillar bleeding, morbidity of cholecystectomy
Notes	Run‐in period: from June 1999 to June 2003 Study terminated before regular end (for benefit or because of adverse events): no Follow‐up: 24 months Funding sources: no information reported Declaration of interest: none declared Country: Spain
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Random number generator
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants and personnel were not blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not clearly stated whether the outcomes assessors were blinded to the treatments or not.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	None
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	The study protocol was not available.
Other bias	High risk	The learning curve was not reported.
for‐profit bias	Unclear risk	Information about sponsorship or trial support not reported