SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015
Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stones.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
67 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 204 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of Diagnostic Guidelines in the Evaluation of Choledocholithiasis in Patients With Acute Biliary Presentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2025Pooled it
- 2020 World Society of Emergency Surgery updated guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute calculus cholecystitis.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2020Guideline
- Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A systematic review for prevention and treatment.World journal of gastroenterology · 2019Pooled it
- ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of choledocholithiasis.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2019Guideline
- Ultrasound versus liver function tests for diagnosis of common bile duct stones.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus intraoperative cholangiography for diagnosis of common bile duct stones.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Antegrade transcystic balloon dilatation in emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy with MRCP validation.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Trial
- Development and clinical validation of a novel deep learning-based mediastinal endoscopic ultrasound navigation system for quality control: a single-center, randomized controlled trial.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Imaging mimickers of cholangiocarcinoma in the extra-hepatic biliary tree: a pictorial review with diagnostic clues.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Clinical outcomes of immediate, 24-h, and 24-72-h laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic stone clearance: a matched cohort analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Unnecessary ERCPs: Is Spontaneous Stone Passage the Sole Determinant?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Spontaneous passage of common bile duct stones: predictive factors and impact on post-ERCP complications.PloS one · 2026Article
- The application value of preoperative magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in predicting the success of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography stone removal.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic bile duct exploration should be standard procedures for patients with the ice-breaking sign?World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Suspected common bile duct stones: Which test is best?Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a SOTA-based system for biliopancreatic segmentation and station recognition system in EUS.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Diagnostic and therapeutic management of severe acute pancreatitis. Evidence based medicine (EBM) clinical practice guidelines.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2025Article
- Might be over-evaluated: Predicting choledocholithiasis in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2025Article
- From Cup to Scan: The Impact of Black Tea on Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography Signal SuppressionCurrent medical imaging · 2025Article
7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are tests used in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in patients suspected of having common bile duct stones prior to undergoing invasive treatment. There has been no systematic review of the accuracy of EUS and MRCP in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones using appropriate reference standards.
objectivesTo determine and compare the accuracy of EUS and MRCP for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones. SEARCH
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov until September 2012. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies and of systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for EUS or MRCP. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct or symptom free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test, as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones, with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors independently screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently collected the data from each study. We used the bivariate model to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. MAIN
resultsWe included a total of 18 studies involving 2366 participants (976 participants with common bile duct stones and 1390 participants without common bile duct stones). Eleven studies evaluated EUS alone, and five studies evaluated MRCP alone. Two studies evaluated both tests. Most studies included patients who were suspected of having common bile duct stones based on abnormal liver function tests; abnormal transabdominal ultrasound; symptoms such as obstructive jaundice, cholangitis, or pancreatitis; or a combination of the above. The proportion of participants who had undergone cholecystectomy varied across studies. Not one of the studies was of high methodological quality. For EUS, the sensitivities ranged between 0.75 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.85 and 1.00. The summary sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) and specificity (95% CI) of the 13 studies that evaluated EUS (1537 participants; 686 cases and 851 participants without common bile duct stones) were 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.99). For MRCP, the sensitivities ranged between 0.77 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.73 and 0.99. The summary sensitivity and specificity of the seven studies that evaluated MRCP (996 participants; 361 cases and 635 participants without common bile duct stones) were 0.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.96) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98). There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity or specificity between EUS and MRCP (P value = 0.5). From the included studies, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 41% the post-test probabilities (with 95% CI) associated with positive and negative EUS test results were 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98) and 0.03 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.06). At the same pre-test probability, the post-test probabilities associated with positive and negative MRCP test results were 0.94 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.97) and 0.05 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.09). AUTHORS'
conclusionsBoth EUS and MRCP have high diagnostic accuracy for detection of common bile duct stones. People with positive EUS or MRCP should undergo endoscopic or surgical extraction of common bile duct stones and those with negative EUS or MRCP do not need further invasive tests. However, if the symptoms persist, further investigations will be indicated. The two tests are similar in terms of diagnostic accuracy and the choice of which test to use will be informed by availability and contra-indications to each test. However, it should be noted that the results are based on studies of poor methodological quality and so the results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies that are of high methodological quality are necessary to determine the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MRCP for the diagnosis of common bile duct 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.