ArticleClinical endoscopy2017
Sensitivity and Specificity of Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography versus Endoscopic Ultrasonography against Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Diagnosing Choledocholithiasis: The Indonesian Experience.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic ultrasound for diagnosis of choledocholithiasis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- Advancements in Managing Choledocholithiasis and Acute Cholangitis in the Elderly: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Modern Management of Common Bile Duct Stones: Breakthroughs, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Cureus · 2024Review
- The Impact of Intraoperative Glucagon on the Diagnostic Accuracy of Intraoperative Cholangiogram for the Diagnosis of Choledocholithiasis: Experience from a Large Tertiary Care Center.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- ERCP findings provide further justification for a "surgery-first" mindset in choledocholithiasis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related adverse events in Korea: A nationwide assessment.United European gastroenterology journal · 2022Article
- Beyond acute cholecystitis-gallstone-related complications and what the emergency radiologist should know.Emergency radiology · 2022Review
- The efficacy and safety of preoperative cholangiography via percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) for difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Article
- Accuracy and timeliness of an abbreviated emergency department MRCP protocol for choledocholithiasis.Emergency radiology · 2019Article
- The accuracy of 3T magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in suspected choledocholithiasis.Polish journal of radiology · 2019Article
- Optimal Evaluation of Suspected Choledocholithiasis: Does This Patient Really Have Choledocholithiasis?Clinical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Comparing the efficacy of EUS versus MRCP with ERCP as gold standard in patients presenting with partial biliary obstruction - finding a better diagnostic tool.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsBiliary stone disease is one of the most common conditions leading to hospitalization. In addition to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are required in diagnosing choledocholithiasis. This study aimed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of EUS and MRCP against ERCP in diagnosing choledocholithiasis.
methodsThis retrospective study was conducted after prospective collection of data involving 62 suspected choledocholithiasis patients who underwent ERCP from June 2013 to August 2014. Patients were divided into two groups. The first group (31 patients) underwent EUS and the second group (31 patients) underwent MRCP. Then, ERCP was performed in both groups. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MRCP were determined by comparing them to ERCP, which is the gold standard.
resultsThe male to female ratio was 3:2. The mean ages were 47.25 years in the first group and 52.9 years in the second group. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for EUS were 96%, 57%, 87%, 88%, and 80% respectively, and for MRCP were 81%, 40%, 68%, 74%, and 50%, respectively.
conclusionsEUS is a better diagnostic tool than MRCP for diagnosing choledocholithiasis.
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.