ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Predicting common bile duct stones: Comparison of SAGES, ASGE and ESGE criteria for accuracy.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Surgical strategies for challenging common bile duct stones in the endoscopic era: A comprehensive review of current evidence.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine accuracy of SAGES, ASGE and ESGE criteria for predicting presence of common bile duct (CBD) stones. Methods: In a prospective study at Jinnah Hospital Lahore from March 2021 to February 2022, patients with suspected CBD stone were stratified in High risk (HR), intermediate risk (IR) and low risk (LR) for SAGES, ASGE and ESGE criteria. All patients underwent ERCP and risk strata were analyzed using SPSS 22® for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy. Results: In 90 patients with mean age 45.18(±14.87) and male/female ratio 0.64(35/55), area Under Curve (AUC) for predicting CBD stones was 0.75, 0.81and 0.83 for HR and 0.28, 0.52 and 0.52 for IR group while it was 0.53, 0.81 and 0.53 for absence of stone in LR group of SAGES, ASGE and ESGE criteria respectively. HR groups had accuracy of 81.1%, 86.7% and 87.8% in predicting CBD stone while LR criteria had 68.8%, 86.7% and 68.1% accuracy in predicting absence of CBD stone for SAGES, ASGE and ESGE respectively. Conclusion: HR strata of SAGES, ASGE and ESGE scores have excellent accuracy in predicting CBD stones whereas IR and LR criteria are suboptimal for excluding CBD stones.
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.