ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Comparing the efficacy of EUS versus MRCP with ERCP as gold standard in patients presenting with partial biliary obstruction - finding a better diagnostic tool.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Predictive Value of Transabdominal Ultrasonography in Detecting Extrahepatic Bile Duct Obstructive Lesions Compared with Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Mirizzi Syndrome: Clinical Insights, Diagnostic Challenges, and Surgical Outcomes - A 5-Year Experience from a Tertiary Care Hospital in Pakistan.Qatar medical journal · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities in patients with partial biliary obstruction with no obvious aetiology on initial imaging. Methods: This is a prospective single-centre cohort study carried out at Pak Emirates Military Hospital, Rawalpindi from June 2019 to June 2021 with non-probability consecutive sampling. Patients with ages 16 to 75 years, presenting with partial biliary obstruction and undetermined aetiology on initial imaging (TUS and MRCP) were enrolled. EUS was performed for each of these patients and the case was regarded as "true positive" or "true negative" if the findings of imaging modality correlated to those of ERCP. ROC curve, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and AUC (with 95% confidence interval) were drawn for all the diagnostic tools using SPSS V. 21. Results: A total of 65 patients were enrolled over a period of two years with male to female ratio of 1.4:1. Forty-four patients had an intermediate risk of choledocholithiasis upon preliminary evaluation whereas, 48(74%) of the participants had CBD calculi or sludge confirmed upon subsequent ERCP. Trans-abdominal ultrasound showed the lowest sensitivity (29.2%), specificity (85%), NPV 12% and PPV 93% for diagnosing CBD calculi. This was followed by MRCP with a sensitivity of 37.5%, specificity of 100%, NPV of 36.2% and PPV of 100%. EUS showed the maximum diagnostic accuracy with AUC of 1.0 and a 100% sensitivity and specificity when compared with ERCP as gold standard. Conclusion: EUS is superior to MRCP in terms of diagnostic accuracy as minimally invasive diagnostic tool and EUS superiority is particularly relevant in patients with intermediate risk of choledocholithiasis.
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.