Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29404489›Full record

ReviewHepatology communications2017

Drug-induced cholestasis.

Vinay Sundaram, Einar S Björnsson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Hepatology communications, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. A newFrontiers in toxicology · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Mechanisms of drug induced liver injury.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Acquired ductopenia: an insight into imaging findings.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Vinay SundaramDepartment of Medicine and Comprehensive Transplant Center Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Los Angeles CA.
Einar S BjörnssonSection of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine National University Hospital of Iceland Reykjavík Iceland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cholestatic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) can be a diagnostic challenge due to a large differential diagnosis, variability in clinical presentation, and lack of serologic biomarkers associated with this condition. The clinical presentation of drug-induced cholestasis includes bland cholestasis, cholestatic hepatitis, secondary sclerosing cholangitis, and vanishing bile duct syndrome. The associate mortality of cholestatic DILI can be as high as 10%, and thus prompt recognition and removal of the offending agent is of critical importance. Several risk factors have been identified for drug-induced cholestasis, including older age, genetic determinants, and properties of certain medications. Antibiotics, particularly amoxicillin/clavulanate, remain the predominant cause of cholestatic DILI, although a variety of other medications associated with this condition have been identified. In this review, we summarize the presentation, clinical approach, risk factors, implicated medications, and management of drug-induced cholestatic liver injury. (

Identifiers

PMID29404489
PMCPMC5678916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.