ReviewTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology2022
New technologies for indeterminate biliary strictures.
Review in Translational gastroenterology and hepatology, 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Still elusive: Developments in the accurate diagnosis of indeterminate biliary strictures.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Review
- A Randomized Comparative Study of the Use of Individual Modality and Combination of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and Digital Single-Operator Cholangioscopy (DSOC) for Diagnosis of Indeterminate Biliary Strictures.Advanced biomedical research · 2024Article
- Case report: The diagnostic dilemma of indeterminate biliary strictures: report on two cases with a literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Clinical approach to indeterminate biliary strictures: Clinical presentation, diagnosis, and workup.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An early and accurate diagnosis of biliary strictures yields optimal patient outcomes; however, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with cytobrush/biopsy forceps has low sensitivity with a high number of false negatives. Various attempts to improve the accuracy of diagnosing indeterminate biliary strictures though ERCP-guided specimen acquisition have been proposed, such as with the use of fluorescence in situ hybridization, an endoscopic scraper, and the wire-grasping method, with modest to large improvements in sensitivity. Direct visualization of the biliary tree during peroral cholangioscopy has shown high sensitivity and specificity for the differentiation of neoplastic and non-neoplastic biliary lesions; however, there is no consensus on the visual characteristics of neoplastic lesions and moderate agreement between observers. Peroral cholangioscopy system (POCS)-guided specimen acquisition using forceps has shown inferior sensitivity compared to the visual characteristics; however, the specificity remains high. Optimal specimen processing with onsite evaluations and touch imprint cytology have been shown to improve the sensitivity and accurately diagnose nearly 90% of patients.
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.