ReviewEndoscopy international open2022
Endoscopic sphincterotomy vs papillary large balloon dilation vs combination modalities for large common bile duct stones: a network meta-analysis.
Review in Endoscopy international open, 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy versus pyloric injection of botulinum toxin for the treatment of gastroparesis: our institutional experience and a systematic review of the literature.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- Structural or functional abnormality of sphincter of Oddi: an important factor for the recurrence of choledocholithiasis after endoscopic treatment.Annals of medicine · 2025Review
- Current Gallstone Treatment Methods, State of the Art.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- PTCD and choledochoscopy for recurrent choledocholithiasis after multiple abdominal surgeries: a case report.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation with sphincterotomy for difficult common bile duct stones ≤12 mm: a prospective study.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
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.