Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33255554›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2020

Best Procedure for the Management of Common Bile Duct Stones via the Papilla: Literature Review and Analysis of Procedural Efficacy and Safety.

Shigeto Ishii, Hiroyuki Isayama, Mako Ushio, Sho Takahashi, Wataru Yamagata, Yusuke Takasaki, Akinori Suzuki, Kazushige Ochiai, Ko Tomishima, Ryo Kanazawa and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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.

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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Prophylactic cholecystectomy offers best outcomes following ERCP clearance of common bile duct stones: a meta-analysis.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shigeto IshiiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-4151-7765
Hiroyuki IsayamaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan.
Mako UshioDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan.
Sho TakahashiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan.
Wataru YamagataDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan.
Yusuke TakasakiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-5036-4545
Akinori SuzukiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan.
Kazushige OchiaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan.
Ko TomishimaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan.
Ryo KanazawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan.
Hiroaki SaitoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan.
Toshio FujisawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan.
Shuichiro ShiinaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan.
Juntendo University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic management of common bile duct stones (CBDS) is standard; however, various techniques are performed via the papilla, and the best procedure in terms of both efficacy and safety has not been determined.

methodsEndoscopic procedures were classified into five categories according to endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and balloon dilation (BD): (1) EST, (2) endoscopic papillary BD (≤10 mm) (EPBD), (3) EST followed by BD (≤10 mm) (ESBD), (4) endoscopic papillary large BD (≥12 mm) (EPLBD), and (5) EST followed by large BD (≥12 mm) (ESLBD). We performed a literature review of prospective and retrospective studies to compare efficacy and adverse events (AEs). Each procedure was associated with different efficacy and AE profiles.

resultsIn total, 19 prospective and seven retrospective studies with a total of 3930 patients were included in this study. For EST, the complete stone removal rate at the first session, rate of mechanical lithotripsy (ML), and rate of overall AEs in EST were superior to EPBD, but a higher rate of bleeding was found for EST. Based on one retrospective study, complete stone removal rate at the first session, rate of ML, and rate of overall AEs were superior for ESBD vs. EST, and the rate of bleeding for the former was also lower. Complete stone removal rate at the first session and rate of ML for ESLBD were superior to those for EST, with no significant difference in rate of AEs. For EST vs. EPLBD, complete stone removal rate at the first session and rate of ML were superior for the latter. For EPLBD vs. ESLBD, the efficacy and safety were similar.

conclusionsESBD is considered the best procedure for the management of small CBDS, but strong evidence is lacking. For large CBDS, both ESLBD and EPLBD are similar.

Indexed as

bleedingcommon bile duct stonesendoscopic papillary balloon dilationendoscopic sphincterotomypost-ERCP pancreatitis

Identifiers

PMID33255554
PMCPMC7760048
OpenAlexW3106687498

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.