Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835Open textbooks209Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Digestive System and Liver›Gallbladder Diseases

Continue where you left off ()

Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Gallbladder Diseases

Digestive System and Liver · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-11-04 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed9 referencesApproximately 4 min read

Diseases of the gallbladder.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. Full-text reviews7. References8. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 3 complete abstracts (671 words), 9 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

Diseases of the gallbladder. They generally involve the impairment of BILE flow, gallstones in the biliary tract, infections, neoplasms, or other diseases.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Disease, Gallbladder; Diseases, Gallbladder; Gallbladder Disease; Gall Bladder Diseases; Bladder Disease, Gall; Bladder Diseases, Gall; Disease, Gall Bladder; Diseases, Gall Bladder.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Biliary Tract Diseases
Narrower topics
Cholecystitis; Cholecystolithiasis; Gallbladder Neoplasms

Related concepts

  • Gallbladder
  • Gallstones
  • Biliary Tract

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 45,700 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Gallbladder Diseases” (counts retrieved 2026-11-04). 5,844 of them (12.8%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 24,023 records.

Reviews account for 4,235 records (9.3%) and meta-analyses for 456. Randomized controlled trials number 642 (1.4%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 24,023 records; 2000-2009: 6,853 records; 2010-2019: 8,980 records; 2020 onward: 5,844 records24,023through 19996,8532000-20098,9802010-20195,8442020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 199924,023
2000-20096,853
2010-20198,980
2020 onward5,844
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 9.3 percent; Meta-analyses: 1.0 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 1.4 percentReviews9.3% (4,235)Meta-analyses1.0% (456)Randomized controlled trials1.4% (642)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 45,700 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews4,2359.3%
Meta-analyses4561.0%
Randomized controlled trials6421.4%

Method: PubMed query "Gallbladder Diseases"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-11-04.

Reading the evidence in digestive system and liver

Gut and liver research ranges from laboratory studies of the microbiome to large trials of drugs and surgery. Symptoms such as pain, reflux or bowel change are reported by patients and overlap between conditions, and diet and microbiome studies are mostly observational. Check whether the study measured symptoms, tissue findings or long-term outcomes, how the diagnosis was made and how long people were followed. Nothing here replaces advice from a qualified clinician.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Estimating global prevalence of gallbladder stones in general population from 2000 to 2024: systematic review and meta-analysis
Ning Q, Liu F, Fang Y, Zhu X, Liu J, Li Z
2025Meta-analysis
Design not recorded in structured metadata
6cc by
PMID 41069192 · DOI · PMC12517418
Suspected common bile duct stones: Which test is best?
Varone A, Mendoza A, Gelbard R, Tracy B, Poulose B
2025Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
5cc by
PMID 40804541 · DOI · PMC12500837
Macrophage-rich niches regulate T cell dynamics at the liver invasive margin during gallbladder cancer progression
Li M, Liu Z, Shan S, Jia Z, Li Y, Liu F, et al.
2026Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
4cc by
PMID 41766656 · DOI · PMC12948426

Estimating global prevalence of gallbladder stones in general population from 2000 to 2024: systematic review and meta-analysis [1]

Meta-analysis Ning Q, Liu F, Fang Y, Zhu X, Liu J, Li Z · · 2025 · cited 6 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundGallbladder stones (GS), is one of the most common and costly of all the gastrointestinal diseases.
Closing excerpt
Accurate estimates of the global and population-based prevalence of GS are helpful for healthcare improvements.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (249 words)

BackgroundGallbladder stones (GS), is one of the most common and costly of all the gastrointestinal diseases. However, global prevalence estimates of GS remain heterogeneous due to methodological variations across studies, and consensus on risk factor hierarchies is still evolving. Therefore, we performed current study in order to estimate the global prevalence of GS.Materials and methodsThe quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were analysed via the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Logit transformations, and sensitivity analysis was performed using a 'Leave-one-out' approach.ResultsOf 18,277 identified records, 139 studies were included in the final analysis. The overall global prevalence of GS in the general population was 5.86% (95% CI 5.28-6.47). Marked geographical disparities were observed, with the highest prevalence in Uganda (21.92%, 95% CI 18.43-25.61) and the lowest in Australia (0.18%, 95% CI 0.17-0.18) - a 122-fold difference. Multivariable meta-regression showed that study size was the strongest predictor (importance: 97.79%). Regarding risk factors, female gender, age > 50 years, increased body mass index, and family history of GS were significantly associated with higher GS prevalence. In contrast, factors such as education level, smoking, alcohol consumption, lifestyle, vegetarian diet, and serum lipid levels had no significant impact. Comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) were strongly correlated with elevated GS prevalence.ConclusionThis meta-analysis showed that the GS was a common disease and affected the health of one in twenty people worldwide. Accurate estimates of the global and population-based prevalence of GS are helpful for healthcare improvements.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41069192 · DOI · PMC12517418

Suspected common bile duct stones: Which test is best? [2]

Research article Varone A, Mendoza A, Gelbard R, Tracy B, Poulose B · · 2025 · cited 5 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
IntroductionThe American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines for common bile duct (CBD) stone management were created to risk stratify patients into low, intermediate, and high-risk groups to optimize interventions.
Closing excerpt
When available, either EUS or IOC is the preferred option for diagnostic clarification to identify the choledocholithiasis in this group.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (234 words)

IntroductionThe American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines for common bile duct (CBD) stone management were created to risk stratify patients into low, intermediate, and high-risk groups to optimize interventions. Low-risk patients typically proceed to cholecystectomy with or without Intra-operative cholangiogram (IOC) whereas high-risk patients typically proceed to common duct clearance. The optimum management of intermediate-risk patients still widely varies. This study aims to characterize the use of MRCP, IOC, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in patients with intermediate risk of CBD stones.Methods and proceduresThis is a retrospective analysis of data from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) Retained Common Bile Duct stone database comprised of deidentified data and outcomes of patients prospectively admitted with suspected CBD stones and/or acute biliary pancreatitis from 12 US medical centers between 2016 and 2019. Analysis of the testing characteristics sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), and predictive values (positive (PPV) and negative (NPV)) were calculated for MRCP, EUS, and IOC based on definitive identification of CBD stones.Results736 patients met inclusion criteria. 521 met the ASGE intermediate risk of choledocholithiasis criteria. 208/521 (39.9%) underwent pre-op MRCP, 44/521 (8.4%) underwent pre-op EUS, and 238/521 (45.7%) underwent IOC.ConclusionsThere is little role for MRCP for ASGE intermediate-risk patients as this modality has both lower sensitivity and specificity than EUS and IOC. When available, either EUS or IOC is the preferred option for diagnostic clarification to identify the choledocholithiasis in this group.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 40804541 · DOI · PMC12500837

Macrophage-rich niches regulate T cell dynamics at the liver invasive margin during gallbladder cancer progression [3]

Research article Li M, Liu Z, Shan S, Jia Z, Li Y, Liu F, et al. · · 2026 · cited 4 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Liver invasion is one of the most frequent events in the progression of gallbladder cancer (GBC).
Closing excerpt
Altogether, these findings demonstrate novel cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying liver invasion and offer clinical value for immunotherapies.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (188 words)

Liver invasion is one of the most frequent events in the progression of gallbladder cancer (GBC). However, the cellular and pathological role of the tumor-liver-interface microenvironment in liver invasion is still enigmatic. Here, we applied single-cell and spatial transcriptomics to systematically investigate the cellular component and gene expression regulation of the microenvironment from the tumor to the liver, specifically the invasive boundary. Our analyses revealed that CXCL9+ macrophage-rich immune cell niches were accumulated in the tumor-liver invasive margin, where 2 subclasses of the CXCL9+ immune cell niches, CXCL9+TRAC+ (CT) and CXCL9+C1QB+ (CC) niches, were identified. CD8+ T cells were recruited by CXCL9+ macrophages through CXCL9-CXCR3 interaction in the CT niche, which was located adjacent to the liver. Moreover, the CC niche was proximal to the tumor core, where tumor cells induced CD8+ T cell exhaustion via LGALS4 expression. In addition, our cohort study showed that high CXCL9 and low LGALS4 in the liver invasion margin demonstrated a favorable prognosis and better responses to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy for patients with gallbladder cancer. Altogether, these findings demonstrate novel cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying liver invasion and offer clinical value for immunotherapies.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41766656 · DOI · PMC12948426

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Systematic review and meta-analysis [4]
    Coccolini F, Catena F, Pisano M, Gheza F, Fagiuoli S, Di Saverio S, et al. · Int J Surg · 2015 · cited 289 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Association of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Use With Risk of Gallbladder and Biliary Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials [5]
    He L, Wang J, Ping F, Yang N, Huang J, Li Y, et al. · JAMA Intern Med · 2022 · cited 260 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Subtotal cholecystectomy for "difficult gallbladders": systematic review and meta-analysis [6]
    Elshaer M, Gravante G, Thomas K, Sorge R, Al-Hamali S, Ebdewi H · JAMA Surg · 2015 · cited 239 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the safety and effectiveness of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis [7]
    Gurusamy K, Samraj K, Gluud C, Wilson E, Davidson BR · Br J Surg · 2010 · cited 215 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of imaging in acute cholecystitis [8]
    Kiewiet JJ, Leeuwenburgh MM, Bipat S, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J, Boermeester MA · Radiology · 2012 · cited 176 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Global Epidemiology of Gallstones in the 21st Century: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [9]
    Wang X, Yu W, Jiang G, Li H, Li S, Xie L, et al. · Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol · 2024 · cited 172 times (Europe PMC)

Full-text reviews on EvidenceLib

Open-access review articles about this topic, reproduced in full with authors, licence and references.

  • Evidence-Based Guideline on Laparoscopy in Pregnancy

    E Ball, N Waters, N Cooper et al. · Facts, Views & Vision in ObGyn 2019 · CC BY 4.0

References

  1. Ning Q, Liu F, Fang Y, Zhu X, Liu J, Li Z. Estimating global prevalence of gallbladder stones in general population from 2000 to 2024: systematic review and meta-analysis. . 2025. PMID 41069192 · DOI · PMC12517418
  2. Varone A, Mendoza A, Gelbard R, Tracy B, Poulose B. Suspected common bile duct stones: Which test is best?. . 2025. PMID 40804541 · DOI · PMC12500837
  3. Li M, Liu Z, Shan S, Jia Z, Li Y, Liu F, et al.. Macrophage-rich niches regulate T cell dynamics at the liver invasive margin during gallbladder cancer progression. . 2026. PMID 41766656 · DOI · PMC12948426
  4. Coccolini F, Catena F, Pisano M, Gheza F, Fagiuoli S, Di Saverio S, et al.. Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2015. PMID 25958296 · DOI
  5. He L, Wang J, Ping F, Yang N, Huang J, Li Y, et al.. Association of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Use With Risk of Gallbladder and Biliary Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2022. PMID 35344001 · DOI · PMC8961394
  6. Elshaer M, Gravante G, Thomas K, Sorge R, Al-Hamali S, Ebdewi H. Subtotal cholecystectomy for "difficult gallbladders": systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg. 2015. PMID 25548894 · DOI
  7. Gurusamy K, Samraj K, Gluud C, Wilson E, Davidson BR. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the safety and effectiveness of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg. 2010. PMID 20035546 · DOI
  8. Kiewiet JJ, Leeuwenburgh MM, Bipat S, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J, Boermeester MA. A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of imaging in acute cholecystitis. Radiology. 2012. PMID 22798223 · DOI
  9. Wang X, Yu W, Jiang G, Li H, Li S, Xie L, et al.. Global Epidemiology of Gallstones in the 21st Century: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024. PMID 38382725 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-11-04.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • CholecystitisDigestive System and Liver
  • GallstonesDigestive System and Liver
  • Biliary Tract DiseasesDigestive System and Liver
  • CholelithiasisDigestive System and Liver
  • Biliary DyskinesiaDigestive System and Liver
  • Intestinal FistulaDigestive System and Liver

All 66 articles in Digestive System and Liver →

At a glance

45,700
PubMed records on this heading
13%
published since 2020
4,235
review articles
642
randomized trials
9
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-11-04; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • CholecystitisDigestive System and Liver
  • GallstonesDigestive System and Liver
  • Biliary Tract DiseasesDigestive System and Liver
  • CholelithiasisDigestive System and Liver
  • Biliary DyskinesiaDigestive System and Liver

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support