Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34373374›Full record

Trial reportInternal medicine (Tokyo, Japan)2022

A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Feasibility Trial of Double-guidewire Techniques for Difficult Biliary Cannulation Comparing a New Double-guidewire-supported Sphincterotome (MagicTome) to a Conventional Device.

Tomoya Ogawa, Shomei Ryozawa, Atsushi Irisawa, Atsuhiro Masuda, Yuki Tanisaka, Akashi Fujita, Masafumi Mizuide, Akane Yamabe, Goro Shibukawa, Arata Sakai and 5 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 48% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

15 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Tomoya OgawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Japan.
Shomei RyozawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Japan.
Atsushi IrisawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Dokkyo Medical University School of Medicine, Japan.
Atsuhiro MasudaDivision of Gastroenterology Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan.
Yuki TanisakaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Japan.
Akashi FujitaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Japan.
Masafumi MizuideDepartment of Gastroenterology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Japan.
Akane YamabeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Dokkyo Medical University School of Medicine, Japan.
Goro ShibukawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Aizu Medical Center, Fukushima Medical University, Japan.
Arata SakaiDivision of Gastroenterology Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan.
Hideyuki ShiomiDivision of Gastroenterology Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan.
Hayato YoshinakaCenter for Clinical Research and Advanced Medicine Establishment, Shiga University of Medical Science, Japan.
Yoshihiro OkabeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kakogawa Central City Hospital, Japan.
Yoshifumi ArisakaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nippon Life Hospital, Japan.
Hiromu KutsumiCenter for Clinical Research and Advanced Medicine Establishment, Shiga University of Medical Science, Japan.
Saitama Medical University · JPFukushima Medical University · JPKobe University · JPShiga University of Medical Science · JPKagawa Prefectural Central Hospital · JPNippon Medical School Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the double-guidewire technique (DGT) using a new double-guidewire-supported sphincterotome (MagicTome) for patients who required endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for biliary cannulation. Methods This prospective multicenter randomized feasibility trial involved patients with difficult biliary cannulation at any of the three study sites from June 2017 to October 2018. Patients were assigned to the DGT with MagicTome (MDGT) initially performed group and the conventional DGT (CDGT) initially performed group. The success rates of biliary cannulation by MDGT and CDGT and the ERCP-related complications were evaluated. Results Twenty-eight patients were included in this study. No significant difference was observed in the success rates of first attempts and crossover attempts between the groups (p=0.69 and p=1.00). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in the success rate of biliary cannulation between MDGT and CDGT (62.5% and 75.0%, respectively; p=0.48). CDGT was successful in two of four patients with malignant biliary obstruction. MDGT was successful in all four patients with malignant biliary obstruction, including the two for whom CDGT was unsuccessful. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in only one MDGT case. Conclusion MDGT is safe for biliary cannulation and can be used in cases where biliary cannulation by CDGT is difficult.

Indexed as

CatheterizationPancreatitisCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeFeasibility StudiesHumansProspective Studiesbiliary cannulationdouble-guidewire techniqueendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographynew type of double-guidewire-supported sphincterotomepancreatitis

Identifiers

PMID34373374
PMCPMC8866775
OpenAlexW3190219820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.