WITHDRAWN: Construction and Analysis of Risk Model of Postoperative Stone Recurrence in Patients with Cholelithiasis: A Protocol-Based KAP Questionnaire Approach

Imagine you are a detective trying to solve a mystery that happens inside a very specific, tiny room in your body: the gallbladder. This little organ is like a storage tank for a digestive juice called bile, which helps your body break down the fatty foods you eat. Sometimes, though, this bile gets too thick or unbalanced, and it starts to harden into little pebbles called gallstones. It's like when you leave a soda can in the sun too long and the sugar crystallizes at the bottom. Doctors can remove these stones with surgery, which is a big relief, but there's a catch: sometimes, the stones come back, like weeds growing in a garden even after you've pulled them out.

The big question scientists are asking is: "Why do some people get these weeds again, while others don't?" To answer this, they need to understand the "Know-It-Alls" (Knowledge), the "Attitude" (Attitude), and the "Do-It-Yourselfers" (Practice) of the patients. This is called a KAP approach. It's like checking if a driver knows the rules of the road, believes they should drive safely, and actually buckles their seatbelt. By mixing these human habits with medical data, researchers hope to build a "crystal ball" or a risk model—a map that predicts who is likely to get gallstones again after surgery. This matters because if we can predict the danger, we can stop the stones before they even form, saving people from another round of surgery.

Now, here is the twist in our story. The paper you are looking at, written by Hui Xie and their team from Qilu Normal University and Jinan Central Hospital, was never a completed study with results to share. Instead, it was a protocol, which is essentially a plan or a blueprint for how they intended to build that crystal ball using a special questionnaire. They planned to ask patients about their knowledge, attitudes, and practices to create a mathematical model.

However, if you were hoping to see the final map, the data, or the results of their detective work, you won't find them here. This document is a withdrawn protocol, not a finished research paper. The authors have officially hit the "stop" button and pulled this manuscript because they found errors that were too big to fix. It's as if they drew up the blueprints for a house, realized the foundation was wobbly, and decided to cancel the entire project before anyone tried to live in it. Because of these substantial corrections needed, they are asking that no one use this specific draft as a reference or a guide.

Furthermore, even if the project had been finished, this document is a preprint, which means it is a draft version of the research that has not been certified by peer review. Because of this, the paper explicitly warns that it should not be used to guide clinical practice. So, while the idea of using a KAP questionnaire to predict stone recurrence was the story they wanted to tell, the actual findings, the numbers, and the final model do not exist in this record. The project is paused, and the authors are going back to the drawing board to get it right.