SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2023
Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic ultrasound for diagnosis of choledocholithiasis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Upfront laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus preoperative MRCP or ERCP in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- The Triage Role of Transabdominal Ultrasonography (TAUS) in the Diagnostic Management of Pancreatic and Distal Biliary Pathologies: A Comparative Efficacy Analysis with Endoscopic Ultrasonography (EUS).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography at 5.0 T: quantitative and qualitative comparison with 3.0 T.BMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- Predictors of Choledocholithiasis in Cholecystectomy Patients and Their Cutoff Values and Prediction Model in Korea in Comparison with the 2019 ASGE Guidelines.Gut and liver · 2024Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound and Intraductal Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Biliary Tract Diseases: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Pancreaticobiliary Maljunction with Repeated Pancreatitis Due to Protein Plugs in a Short Period.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Article
- Performance of European and American Societies of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Guidelines for Prediction of Choledocholithiasis in Patients with Acute Biliary Pancreatitis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound in Pancreatology: Focus on Inflammatory Diseases and Interventions.Visceral medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBoth endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are used for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis (CDL). Previous studies have shown conflicting results regarding the optimal diagnostic strategy for suspected CDL; hence, this meta-analysis was conducted.
methodsA comprehensive search of literature from 1990 till April 2022 was done of three databases for studies comparing EUS and MRCP to diagnose CDL.
resultsA total of 12 studies were identified. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for EUS were 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-0.98], and 0.92 (95% CI 0.85-0.96), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRCP were 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-0.90) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.79-0.96), respectively. EUS had a higher relative sensitivity [Relative risk (RR) 1.12, 95% CI 1.05-1.19], a higher diagnostic accuracy (Odds ratio 1.98, 95% CI 1.35-2.90) but comparable specificity (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96-1.08) with MRCP.
conclusionThere is little difference concerning specificity, although EUS likely provides a higher sensitivity and accuracy for diagnosing CDL, compared to MRCP.
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.