Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29451169›Full record

ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound

Patient perception and preference of EUS-guided drainage over percutaneous drainage when endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage fails: An international multicenter survey.

Kwangwoo Nam, Dong Uk Kim, Tae Hoon Lee, Takuji Iwashita, Yousuke Nakai, Ahmed Bolkhir, Lara Aguilera Castro, Enrique Vazquez-Sequeiros, Carlos de la Serna, Manuel Perez-Miranda and 6 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Efficacy of guided breathing virtual reality for pain management in patients with cancer undergoing percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

16 authors at 12 institutions in 4 countries.

Kwangwoo NamDepartment of Internal Medicine, Dankook University College of Medicine, Cheonan, South Korea.
Dong Uk KimDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Biomedical Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, South Korea.
Tae Hoon LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University School of Medicine, Cheonan, South Korea.
Takuji IwashitaFirst Department of Internal Medicine, Gifu University Hospital, Gifu, Japan.
Yousuke NakaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Ahmed BolkhirDepartment of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Lara Aguilera CastroDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, IRYCIS, University Hospital Ramon y Cajal, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain.
Enrique Vazquez-SequeirosDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, IRYCIS, University Hospital Ramon y Cajal, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain.
Carlos de la SernaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Rio Hortega University Hospital, Valladolid, Spain.
Manuel Perez-MirandaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Rio Hortega University Hospital, Valladolid, Spain.
John G LeeDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The University of California Irvine Health, Orange, CA, USA.
Sang Soo LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Dong-Wan SeoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Sung Koo LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Myung-Hwan KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Do Hyun ParkDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Hospital Universitario Río Hortega · ESInstituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria · ESUlsan College · KRUniversity of Ulsan · KRAsan Medical Center · KRDankook University · KRGifu University Hospital · JPPusan National University Hospital · KRSoonchunhyang University · KRThe University of Tokyo · JPUniversity of California, Irvine · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesEUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a feasible procedure when ERCP fails, as is percutaneous transhepatic BD (PTBD). However, little is known about patient perception and preference of EUS-BD and PTBD. PATIENTS AND

methodsAn international multicenter survey was conducted in seven tertiary referral centers. In total, 327 patients, scheduled to undergo ERCP for suspected malignant biliary obstruction, were enrolled in the study. Patients received decision aids with visual representation regarding the techniques, benefits, and adverse events (AEs) of EUS-BD and PTBD. Patients were then asked the choice between the two simulated scenarios (EUS-BD or PTBD) after failed ERCP, the reasons for their preference, and whether altering AE rates would influence their prior choice.

resultsIn total, 313 patients (95.7%) responded to the questionnaire and 251 patients (80.2%) preferred EUS-BD. The preference of EUS-BD was 85.7% (186/217) with EUS-BD expertise, compared to 67.7% (65/96) without EUS-BD expertise (P < 0.001). The main reason for choosing EUS-BD was the possibility of internal drainage (78.1%). In multivariate analysis, the availability of EUS-BD expertise was the single independent factor that influenced patient preference (odds ratio: 3.168; 95% of confidence interval, 1.714-5.856; P < 0.001). The preference of EUS-BD increased as AE rates decreased (P < 0.001).

conclusionsIn this simulated scenario, approximately 80% of patients preferred EUS-BD over PTBD after failed ERCP. However, preference of EUS-BD declined as its AE rates increased. Further technical innovations and improved proficiency in EUS-BD for reducing AEs may encourage the use of this procedure as a routine clinical practice when ERCP fails.

Indexed as

Drainageendosonographypatient preferencesurveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID29451169
PMCPMC5838728
OpenAlexW2789501034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.