ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2014
Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for secondary common bile duct stones compared with laparoscopic trans-cystic common bile duct exploration.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intraoperative ultrasound enhancing safety of key steps in complex laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
- The Diagnostic Value of GGT-Based Biochemical Indicators for Choledocholithiasis with Negative Imaging Results of Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Clinical Efficacy Analysis of the Combination of the Laparoscope and Preoperative or Intraoperative Duodenoscope in the Treatment of Cholecystolithiasis with Choledocholithiasis: A Retrospective Study.Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A · 2019Article
- Optimal Evaluation of Suspected Choledocholithiasis: Does This Patient Really Have Choledocholithiasis?Clinical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Magnetic Resonance (MR) Cholangiopancreatography Demonstration of the Cystic Duct Entering the Right Hepatic Duct.The American journal of case reports · 2017Article
- Routine Cysticotomy and Flushing of the Cystic Duct in Patients with Low Risk of Common Duct Stones: Can It Be Beneficial?Minimally invasive surgery · 2017Article
- Safe laparoscopic clearance of the common bile duct in emergently admitted patients with choledocholithiasis and cholangitis.Korean journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2016Article
- Accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangiography compared to operative endoscopy in detecting biliary stones, a single center experience and review of literature.World journal of radiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic potential of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in preoperative patients with secondary common bile duct stones during the application of laparoscopic trans-cystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE). MATERIAL AND
methodsThe clinical records of 255 patients were retrospectively analyzed. All patients included in the study were examined by MRCP 3 days prior to LTCBDE.
resultsSecondary bile duct stones were detected in 220 patients using LTCBDE. Of the patients diagnosed by MRCP, 141 were true-positive, 28 were true-negative, 7 were false-positive and 79 were false-negative. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of MRCP for secondary common bile duct stones were 64.09%, 80.00%, 66.27%, 95.27%, and 26.17%, respectively. When the cases with muddy stones were excluded, the outcomes were 80.41%, 79.41%, 69.23%, 94.44%, and 48.21%, respectively. When cases with stones <3 mm (inclusive) in diameter were excluded, the outcomes were 93.75%, 79.41%, 86.27%, 93.75%, and 65.85%, respectively. When cases with stones <5 mm (inclusive) in diameter were excluded, the outcomes were 93.10%, 79.41%, 89.26%, 92.05%, and 81.82%, respectively.
conclusionsThe effectiveness of preoperative MRCP is overestimated for the diagnosis of secondary common bile duct stones, particularly for muddy and micro-stones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.