Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31719562›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2019

EUS-guided biliary drainage versus ERCP for first-line palliation of malignant distal biliary obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sung Yong Han, Seon-Ok Kim, Hoonsub So, Euisoo Shin, Dong Uk Kim, Do Hyun Park

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: a literature review.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2023
    Review
  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

6 authors.

Sung Yong HanDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine and Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea.
Seon-Ok KimDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Hoonsub SoDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Euisoo ShinAsan Medical Library, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5781-5062
Dong Uk KimDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine and Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea.
Do Hyun ParkDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. dhpark@amc.seoul.kr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with transpapillary metal stenting is the standard palliation method for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO); however, post-ERCP pancreatitis are not uncommon. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) with transmural metal stenting has emerged as an option for primary palliation of MDBO. We compared the efficacy and safety of these procedures as first-line MDBO treatment. We searched for relevant English-language articles in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, adverse events, stent patency, reintervention rates, and procedure time. Subgroup analysis was performed for patients without duodenal invasion (eg, endoscopically accessible papilla; EUS-choledochoduodenostomy [CDS] vs. ERCP). Ten studies (3 randomized trials and 7 retrospective studies) with 756 patients were included. The cumulative technical and clinical success rates were high for both procedures (EUS-BD: 94.8% [294/310] and 93.8% [286/305], ERCP: 96.5% [386/400] and 95.7% [377/394]). The cumulative adverse event rates were 16.3% (54/331) for EUS-BD and 18.3% (78/425) for ERCP. In subgroup analysis for patients without duodenal invasion, EUS-CDS showed similar cumulative technical and clinical success rate with ERCP (technical success rate, EUS-CDS vs. ERCP: 94.2% [146/155] vs. 97.8% [237/242]; clinical success rate, EUS-CDS vs. ERCP: 94.2% [145/154] vs. 93.0% [225/242]). The cumulative rate of adverse events for EUS-CDS and ERCP was also comparable (15.5% [24/155] for EUS-CDS and 18.6% [45/242] for ERCP). As first-line palliation of MDBO, EUS-BD was similar to ERCP in technical and clinical success and safety; however, larger randomized trials comparing EUS-CDS and ERCP in this setting with endoscopically accessible papilla may be required.

Indexed as

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeDrainageEndosonographyPalliative CareCholestasisHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID31719562
PMCPMC6851119

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.