ArticleJGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology2020
Peroral cholangioscopy-guided forceps biopsy
Article in JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Practice Guidelines for Peroral Cholangioscopy.Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences · 2026Guideline
- Percutaneous Endobiliary Cryobiopsy in Biliary Obstruction: Randomised Study (BICRYOB).Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Trial
- Evolving techniques to optimize ERCP-based sampling and evaluation of malignant biliary strictures.Gastroenterology report · 2026Review
- Direct Single-Operator Cholangioscopy and Intraductal Ultrasonography in Patients with Indeterminate Biliary Strictures: A Single Center Experience.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Efficacy of wire-guided biopsy forceps for tissue sampling in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a preliminary experience.Clinical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Bile duct tissue acquisition by cholangioscopy-guided cryobiopsy technique: first-in-human application.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2023Article
- Peroral Cholangioscopy-Guided Targeted Biopsy versus Conventional Endoscopic Transpapillary Forceps Biopsy for Biliary Stricture with Suspected Bile Duct Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Choledochoscopy: An update.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2021Review
- Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Novel Slim Biopsy Forceps with Conventional Biopsy Forceps for Biliary Stricture: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related tissue acquisition, including fluoroscopy-guided forceps biopsy (F-FB), is a common technique in diagnosing indeterminate biliary lesions. Recently, peroral cholangioscopy (POCS) and POCS-guided forceps biopsy (POCS-FB) has also been used for the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary lesions. However, it is uncertain which of those techniques were superior for the diagnosis of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC). We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield and safety of F-FB for indeterminate biliary lesions compared with POCS-FB.
methodsPatients who underwent F-FB or POCS-FB to evaluate indeterminate biliary lesions between October 2011 and August 2019 were enrolled retrospectively. We carried out propensity score matching to balance these clinical differences between the F-FB group and POCS-FB group. In the propensity score-matched cohort, we compared the diagnostic performance of F-FB with that of POCS-FB based on the pathological evaluation. We also evaluate adverse events associated with F-FB and POCS-FB.
resultsWe enrolled 113 patients with biliary diseases, and 62 patients were analyzed in the propensity score-matched cohort. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of F-FB were 82.4, 100, and 90.3%, and for POCS-FB, those values were 83.3, 100, and 90.3%, respectively. There were no significant differences in the diagnostic performance between F-FB and POCS-FB. There were also no significant differences in the occurrence of adverse events between F-FB and POCS-FB (41.9
conclusionsThe diagnostic yield of F-FB for ECC is similar to that of POCS-FB. POCS-FB is not necessary for the initial pathological diagnosis of indeterminate biliary lesions.
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.