ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
A comparison of balloon- versus stent-based approach for dominant strictures in primary sclerosing cholangitis: a meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic management of primary sclerosing cholangitis.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2025Review
- Per-oral cholangioscopy in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis: a 12-month follow-up study.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Approximately 10-62% of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) will develop dominant strictures at some point during their disease. Because of the paucity of available data, optimal endoscopic therapeutic strategies remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic balloon dilation vs. balloon dilation plus stenting of dominant strictures in PSC. Methods: A comprehensive literature search from inception to November 2020 was performed. Primary outcomes were clinical and technical success. Secondary outcomes reported were adverse events (AE). Clinical success was defined in most studies as improvement in symptoms such as fever, abdominal pain, pruritus, fatigue and/or liver enzymes. The statistical analysis was done using comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA Version 3). Results: The technical success rates for balloon and balloon plus stent were 96.8% and 91.9%, respectively. The clinical success rates for balloon and balloon plus stent were 86.5% and 70.8%, respectively. The overall AE rates for balloon and balloon plus stent were 11.2% and 26.9%, respectively. Other AE rates in balloon and balloon plus stent were cholangitis (4.8% vs. 11.4%), bile duct perforation (1.3% vs. 1.6%), post-procedural pancreatitis (2.2% vs. 9.8%), and bleeding (1.5% vs. 1.2%), respectively. Low to considerable heterogeneity was noted in our meta-analysis. Conclusions: Balloon dilation appears to be superior in terms of clinical and technical successes, with overall lower rates of AE compared to balloon dilation plus stenting for the management of PSC dominant strictures. Further trials are needed to validate our findings.
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.