ArticleGE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology2018
Outcomes of Different Methods for Analysis of Biliary Brush Cytology and of Factors Associated with Positive Diagnosis in an Age-Dependent Retrospective Review.
Article in GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Brush Cytology, Forceps Biopsy, or Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling for Diagnosis of Bile Duct Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of two intraductal brush cytology devices for suspected malignant biliary strictures: randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Trial
- Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Brush-Based Cytology Vs Biopsy: a Comparative Diagnostic Study.Maedica · 2025Article
- Percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy for benign and malignant biliary disease using a novel short single-operator cholangioscope.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Observational
- How to Brush Your Way into the Bile Duct.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsBrush cytology during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the most frequently used strategy for obtaining a tissue sample from an indeterminate biliary stricture. A recent study reported that age is a factor associated with positive yields, but further analysis of how age influences the results was lacking. We aimed to evaluate clinical effectiveness of biliary cytology and prognostic factors for a positive outcome, especially age.
methodsThis study was a single-center, retrospective, clinical study of 77 consecutive patients who underwent brush cytology during ERCP to obtain a diagnosis of an indeterminate biliary stricture. We compared 2 routine cytology techniques: A (smear); B (centrifugation of the cytological material collected and the cut-off brush + cell block when sufficient amount of material was available). The data were collected aiming to compare the accuracy of the different techniques used and the prognostic factors affecting the outcome, with a particular focus on age. The yield for brush cytology was compared with the gold standard defined as either definitive histology or the long-term clinical course.
resultsThe overall accuracy of the 2 used methods was 75.3%. Sensitivity was 52.5%, specificity was 100%, positive predictive value was 100%, and negative predictive value was 66.1%. Although not statistically significant, there was a trend toward accuracy for method B compared with method A (80.4 vs. 65.4%;
conclusionsIn this series, the accuracy of routine biliary brush cytology was not equal for all methods and ages; in particular, younger patients (below 69 years) tended to have a higher probability of a correct diagnosis.
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.