ArticleCurrent treatment options in gastroenterology2015
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: a review.
Article in Current treatment options in gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and safety of EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS): a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- Comparison of long-term outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy and choledochoduodenostomy for distal malignant biliary obstruction: a multicenter retrospective study.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Risk Factors for Stent Migration into the Abdominal Cavity after Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Different options of endosonography-guided biliary drainage after endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography failure.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementEndoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) has become the standard tool for diagnosis and treatment of patients with biliary obstruction. However, despite the reported success rate of >90 % in expert centers, the common bile duct may still be occasionally inaccessible due to anatomical or technical issues. Over the past decade, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an effective alternative over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) or surgical bypass for biliary drainage after unsuccessful ERCP. EUS-BD includes rendezvous techniques (EUS-RV), EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), and EUS-guided hepatogastrostomy (EUS-HGS). Published data demonstrated high success rates especially for EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS. Complication rates, however, are also higher in these two techniques. The indications and anatomical requirements for the three techniques differ and should be considered complementary to each other. Most reported studies only included a small number of patients, and larger-scaled randomized trials are required to establish the efficacy among various EUS techniques and to compare to traditional means of radiological or surgical drainage.
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.