Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32895332›Full record

Trial reportGut2021

Equivalent performance of single-use and reusable duodenoscopes in a randomised trial.

Ji Young Bang, Robert Hawes, Shyam Varadarajulu

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Gut, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04143698 (Randomized Trial Comparing Reusable and Disposable Duodenoscopes for ERCP), which is not on this map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT04143698 nacompletednot on this map

Randomized Trial Comparing Reusable and Disposable Duodenoscopes for ERCP

TypeinterventionalSponsorAdventHealthRan2020 to 2020Enrolled98ConditionsEndoscopic Retrograde CholangiopancreatographyArmsendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Disposable Colonoscopes: Unpacking the Infection-Free Endoscopy With the REAL Price Tag-What About Performance?Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Are single-use scopes the way of the future?iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ji Young BangCenter for Interventional Endoscopy, AdventHealth, Orlando, Florida, USA.
Robert HawesCenter for Interventional Endoscopy, AdventHealth, Orlando, Florida, USA.
Shyam VaradarajuluCenter for Interventional Endoscopy, AdventHealth, Orlando, Florida, USA svaradarajulu@yahoo.com.ORCID 0000-0002-0047-0016
AdventHealth Orlando · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSingle-use duodenoscopes have been recently developed to eliminate risk of infection transmission from contaminated reusable duodenoscopes. We compared performances of single-use and reusable duodenoscopes in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

designPatients with native papilla requiring ERCP were randomised to single-use or reusable duodenoscope. Primary outcome was comparing number of attempts to achieve successful cannulation of desired duct. Secondary outcomes were technical performance that measured duodenoscope manoeuvrability, mechanical-imaging characteristics and ability to perform therapeutic interventions, need for advanced cannulation techniques or cross-over to alternate duodenoscope group to achieve ductal access and adverse events.

results98 patients were treated using single-use (n=48) or reusable (n=50) duodenoscopes with >80% graded as low-complexity procedures. While median number of attempts to achieve successful cannulation was significantly lower for single-use cohort (2 vs 5, p=0.013), ease of passage into stomach (p=0.047), image quality (p<0.001), image stability (p<0.001) and air-water button functionality (p<0.001) were significantly worse. There was no significant difference in rate of cannulation, adverse events including mortality (one patient in each group), need to cross-over or need for advanced cannulation techniques to achieve ductal access, between cohorts. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, only duodenoscope type (single-use) was associated with less than six attempts to achieve selective cannulation (p=0.012), when adjusted for patient demographics, procedural complexity and type of intervention.

conclusionGiven the overall safety profile and similar technical performance, single-use duodenoscopes represent an alternative to reusable duodenoscopes for performing low-complexity ERCP procedures in experienced hands. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT04143698.

Indexed as

Disposable EquipmentDuodenoscopesAgedCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeCross InfectionEquipment ContaminationEquipment DesignFemaleHumansInfection ControlMaleendoscopic retrograde pancreatographytherapeutic endoscopy

Identifiers

PMID32895332
PMCPMC8040157
OpenAlexW3083460223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.