Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31897383›Full record

ReviewEndoscopic ultrasound2019

Choledochoduodenostomy: Outcomes and limitations.

Everson Luiz De Almeida Artifon, Thiago A C Visconti, Vitor O Brunaldi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Endoscopic ultrasound, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: a literature review.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2023
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: Are we there yet?World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2021
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors.

Everson Luiz De Almeida ArtifonDepartment of Surgery, Hospital Das Clínicas, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil.
Thiago A C ViscontiGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Hospital Das Clínicas, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil.
Vitor O BrunaldiGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Hospital Das Clínicas, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has gained broad acceptance as the preferred approach after failed ERCP for malignant biliary obstruction. Despite the drainage route, namely, transhepatic or transduodenal, the technical and clinical success rates are high. Because of such good outcomes with tolerable adverse events (AEs) rate, the EUS-BD might soon even replace the ERCP for primary biliary decompression in patients at high risk of failed biliary cannulation. Among the EUS-BD techniques, the choledochoduodenostomy seems to carry the lower risk of AEs and should be considered the first-line EUS approach for biliary decompression.

Indexed as

CholangiopancreatographyEUS-guided biliary drainagelimitationsoutcomes

Identifiers

PMID31897383
PMCPMC6896435

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.