Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29037223›Full record

SynthesisCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2017

Comparison of efficacy and complications of endoscopic and percutaneous biliary drainage in malignant obstructive jaundice: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Feng Duan, Li Cui, Yanhua Bai, Xiaohui Li, Jieyu Yan, Xuan Liu

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 124 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Does Treatment of Jaundice Matter before Pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results from an International Multicentre Recurrence after Whipple (RAW) Study.European surgical research. Europaische chirurgische Forschung. Recherches chirurgicales europeennes · 2026
    Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Feng DuanDepartment of Interventional Radiology, the General Hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army, Beijing, 100853, China. duanfeng@vip.sina.com.
Li CuiDepartment of Interventional Radiology, the General Hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army, Beijing, 100853, China.
Yanhua BaiDepartment of Interventional Radiology, the General Hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army, Beijing, 100853, China.
Xiaohui LiDepartment of Interventional Radiology, the General Hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army, Beijing, 100853, China.
Jieyu YanDepartment of Interventional Radiology, the General Hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army, Beijing, 100853, China.
Xuan LiuDepartment of Interventional Radiology, the General Hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army, Beijing, 100853, China.
Chinese People's Liberation Army · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMalignant obstructive jaundice is a common problem in the clinic. Currently, the generally applied treatment methods are percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD). Nevertheless, there has not been a uniform conclusion published on either efficacy of the two types of drainage or the incidence rate of complications. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing endoscopic versus percutaneous biliary drainage in malignant obstructive jaundice, to determine whether there is any difference between percutaneous and endoscopic biliary drainage, with respect to efficacy and incidence rate of overall complications.

methodsThe enrolled studies contain a total of three randomized controlled trials and eleven retrospective studies, which together encompass 2246 patients with PTBD and 8100 patients with EBD.

resultsOur analysis indicates that there is no difference between PTBD and EBD with regard to therapeutic success rate (%), overall complication (%), intraperitoneal bile leak, 30-day mortality, sepsis, or duodenal perforation (%). Cholangitis and pancreatitis after PTBD were lower than after EBD, with odds ratios (OR) of 0.48 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31 to 0.74) and 0.16 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.52), respectively. Incidences of bleeding and tube dislocation for PTBD were higher than EBD, OR of 1.81 (95% CI, 1.35 to 2.44) and 3.41 (95% CI, 1.10 to 10.60).

conclusionsThis meta-analysis indicates certain advantages for both PTBD and EBD. In the clinical practice, it is advised to choose specifically either PTBD or EBD, based on location of obstruction, purpose of drainage (as a preoperative procedure or a palliative treatment) and level of experience in biliary drainage at individual treatment centers.

Indexed as

Bile Duct NeoplasmsDrainageEndoscopy, Digestive SystemHumansJaundice, ObstructivePublication BiasRetrospective StudiesEndoscopic biliary drainageMalignant obstructive jaundicePercutaneous biliary drainage

Identifiers

PMID29037223
PMCPMC5644169
OpenAlexW2766040033

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.