ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
A validated score predicting common bile duct stone in patients hospitalized with acute calculus cholecystitis: a multi-center retrospective study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimising the management of patients with cholecystitis and suspected common bile duct stones: an external validation of current prediction models.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Article
- Clinical update on acute cholecystitis and biliary pancreatitis: between certainties and grey areas.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Review
- Effect of the extrahepatic bile duct anatomy on choledocholithiasis and its clinical significance.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Intraoperative transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct stone clearance with SpyGlass™ discover during emergency and elective cholecystectomy: a single-center case series.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2024Article
- Prospective validation of the Israeli Score for the prediction of common bile duct stones in patients with acute calculous cholecystitis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConcomitant common bile duct (CBD) stone in the setting of acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) should be suspected once abnormal liver indices are noticed.
aimWe aimed to identify predictors of CBD stone in patients hospitalized with ACC.
methodsWe performed a retrospective multi-center, case-controlled, study from 1st of January 2016 until the 31th of December 2018. Inclusion criteria included patients with an established diagnosis of ACC based on clinical, laboratory and radiological criteria and who had an endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for suspected CBD stone. One-hundred and twelve patients were included, of these fifty-three patients (47.3%) were diagnosed with CBD stone by EUS.
resultsIn univariate analysis, Age (OR 1.038, P = 0.001), total bilirubin (mg/dl) (OR 1.429, P = 0.02) and CBD width (mm) by US (OR 1.314, P = 0.01) were statistically significant in predicting CBD stone and remained significant in multivariate regression analysis. We developed a diagnostic score that included these three parameters, with assignment of weights for each variable according to the coefficient estimate. A low cut-off score of 0 was associated with sensitivity of 100% for CBD stone, whereas a high cut-off score of 3 was associated with sensitivity of 10% and specificity of 96.6% with a positive predictive value of 67% (ROC of 0.7558). We validated this score with an independent cohort (ROC of 0.7416) with a sensitivity of 46.6%, a specificity of 91.5% and a PPV of 87.1%.
conclusionWe recommend incorporating this score as an aid for stratifying patients with ACC into low or high probability for concomitant CBD stone.
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.