ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2022
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for bile duct stones in patients with a performance status score of 3 or 4.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Outcomes of Endoscopic Treatment for Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Common Bile Duct Stones in the Elderly: A Propensity Score-Based Cohort Analysis.Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences · 2026Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Electrohydraulic Lithotripsy Using Peroral Cholangioscopy under Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Guidance in Older Adults: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs the aging population grows worldwide, the rates of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for common bile duct stones (CBDS) in older patients with a poor performance status (PS) have been increasing. However, the data on the safety and efficacy of ERCP for CBDS in patients with a PS score of 3 or 4 are lacking, with only a few studies having investigated this issue among patients with poor PS.
aimTo examine the safety and efficacy of ERCP for CBDS in patients with a PS score of 3 or 4.
methodsThis study utilized a retrospective multi-centered design of three institutions in Japan for 8 years to identify a total of 1343 patients with CBDS having native papillae who underwent therapeutic ERCP. As a result, 1113 patients with a PS 0-2 and 230 patients with a PS 3-4 were included. One-to-one propensity-score matching was performed to compare the safety and efficacy of ERCP for CBDS between patients with a PS 0-2 and those with a PS 3-4.
resultsThe overall ERCP-related complication rates in all patients and propensity score-matched patients with a PS 0-2 and 3-4 were 9.0% (100/1113) and 7.0% (16/230;
conclusionERCP for CBDS can be effectively performed in patients with a PS 3 or 4. Nevertheless, the indication for ERCP in such patients should be carefully considered with prophylactic antibiotics.
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.