ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage in Patients With Malignant Biliary Obstruction: Which Is the Optimal Cost-Saving Strategy After Failed ERCP?
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Biliary drainage in patients with altered anatomy: Literature review of different endoscopic approaches.World journal of gastroenterology · 2026Review
- Acute pancreatitis in patient with malignant obstructive jaundice following percutaneous trans-hepatic biliary drainage: A case report.Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2025Article
- EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage after failed ERCP: A propensity score-matched analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Comparative efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography as first-line palliation in malignant distal biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) after failed primary ERCP in malignant distal biliary obstruction has similar clinical outcomes compared to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD), little is known about optimal cost-saving strategy after failed ERCP. We performed a cost analysis of EUS-BD and PTBD after failed ERCP in two countries with different health care systems in the East and West. Methods: From an unpublished database nested in a randomized controlled trial, we compared the cost between EUS-BD and PTBD in Korea. The total cost was defined as the sum of the total biliary drainage costs plus the cost of hospital stay to manage adverse events. We also performed a cost-minimization analysis using a decision-analytic model of a US Medicare population. Results: In Korea, the median total costs for the biliary intervention ($1,203.36 for EUS-BD vs. $1,517.83 for PTBD; Conclusions: EUS-BD may have an impact on cost-savings due to better clinical outcomes profile compared to PTBD after failed ERCP, even in different medical insurance programs.
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.