ArticleBMC gastroenterology2016
Is endoscopic treatment beneficial in patients with clinically suspicious of common bile duct stones but no obvious filling defects during the ERCP examination?
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors related to the spontaneous passage of common bile duct stones through the papilla: a single-center retrospective cohort study.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSometimes, no definite filling defect could be found by cholangiogram (ERC) during the endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatiographic (ERCP) exam; even prior images had evidence of common bile duct stones (CBDS). We aimed in estimating the positive rate of extraction of CBDS who had treated by endoscopic sphincterotomy/endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EST/EPBD) with negative ERC finding.
methodsOne hundred forty-one patients with clinically suspicious of CBDS but negative ERC, who had received EST/EPBD treatments was enrolled. Potential factors for predicting CBDS, as well as the treatment-related complications were analyzed.
resultsNearly half of the patients with negative ERC, had a positive stone extraction. Only patients with high probability of CBDS were significantly associated with positive stone extraction. Moreover, patients with intermediate probability of CBDS had higher rates of overall complications, including post-ERCP pancreatitis. In addition, no significant difference of post-ERCP pancreatitis was found between EST and EPBD groups in any one group of patients with the same probability of CBDS.
conclusionsRegarding patients with negative ERC, therapeutic ERCP is beneficial and safe for patients present with high probability of CBDS. Moreover, under the same probability of CBDS, there was no significance difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis between EST and EPBD.
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.