ArticleScientific reports2023
Improved fluoroscopy-guided biopsies in the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary strictures: a multi-center retrospective study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrated Multi-Channel Automatic Cellular Profiling (iMAP) System for Cholangiocarcinoma Diagnosis.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Article
- Current insights and future perspectives of treatment strategies for biliary tract cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Review
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of improved fluoroscopy-guided biopsies for indeterminate biliary strictures (IBDS). A multi-center retrospective study was performed. Patients with IBDS who underwent digital single-operator cholangioscopy (DSOC) and improved fluoroscopy-guided biopsies procedures were included. The individual sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were analyzed. A total of 67 patients were enrolled in this multi-center retrospective study. The DSOC and improved fluoroscopy-guided biopsies procedures were successfully performed in all cases (100%). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values were 83.3%, 89.5%, and 85.1% for DSOC visual impression; 95.8%, 94.7%, and 95.5% for improved fluoroscopy-guided biopsies procedures, respectively. The sensitivity and accuracy of improved fluoroscopy-guided biopsies were significantly higher compared with DSOC visual impression. Four patients (6.0%, 4/67) occurred adverse events after the procedures. Improved fluoroscopy-guided biopsies had a high diagnostic accuracy of IBDS diagnosis.
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.