ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
The Usefulness of Peroral Cholangioscopy for Intrahepatic Stones.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Practice Guidelines for Peroral Cholangioscopy.Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences · 2026Guideline
- Identification of the source of biliary bleeding using a novel ultrathin-type peroral cholangioscope.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2025Article
- Peroral cholangioscopy: past, present and future.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Review
- Comparative Study of Endoscopic Treatment for Intrahepatic and Common Bile Duct Stones Using Peroral Cholangioscopy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Performance and safety of percutaneous cholangioscopy: 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
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peroral cholangioscopy (POCS) is believed to be effective in treating intrahepatic stones; however, reports on its efficacy are few. We reviewed the results of intrahepatic stones treated with fluoroscopic guidance or POCS. This study included 26 patients who underwent endoscopic treatment for intrahepatic stones at our institution between January 2017 and December 2021. We retrospectively evaluated the procedure time and adverse events in the first session and the rate of complete stone removal. Complete stone removal was achieved in 92% (24/26); POCS was required in 16 of 26 (62%) procedures and the complete stone removal was achieved in 15 of 16 (94%) of these procedures. The POCS group had a significantly longer procedure time than the fluoroscopy group. Cholangitis incidence was high; however, no difference was noted between patients with and without POCS, and all cases were mild and treated conservatively. Endoscopic treatment for intrahepatic stones may lead to an increase in the incidence of cholangitis, requires specialized devices such as a cholangioscope, and should be performed in an established institution by experienced staff. POCS is useful for intrahepatic stones formed upstream of the stenosis and intrahepatic stones piled in the bile duct.
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.