ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2023
Non-interventional Management of Asymptomatic Diminutive Choledocholithiasis Versus Endoscopic Extraction in Consecutive Patients.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of Stone Size in Risk Stratification for Intervention in Asymptomatic Choledocholithiasis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent guidelines recommend treating choledocholithiasis, regardless of symptoms or stone size, with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, asymptomatic choledocholithiasis, discovered incidentally on imaging, may carry a higher risk of ERCP-related adverse events, and some asymptomatic and diminutive stones may not cause biliary adverse events during extended follow-up. Therefore, we aimed to clarify the best treatment strategies for asymptomatic choledocholithiasis based on stone size.
methodsWe retrospectively identified patients with incidental imaging-found asymptomatic diminutive (≤ 4 mm) or non-diminutive (> 4 mm) choledocholithiasis and divided them into two groups: those who did not undergo ERCP and were treated when complications arose (on-demand group) and those who underwent ERCP before being symptomatic (intervention group). Adverse events were defined as any biliary or pancreatic complication related to ERCP or arising during observation or after intervention. The primary outcome was the adjusted overall adverse event-free survival using the propensity score-based matching weights method comparing the two groups of stone size.
resultsAmong 148 patients identified (median follow-up period, 969 days), 68 had diminutive stones and 80 had non-diminutive stones. Of the 68 patients with diminutive stones, 51 were in the on-demand group and 17 in the intervention group. The overall adjusted adverse event-free survival was significantly higher in the on-demand group for diminutive stones (97.4% and 70.1%, respectively, at 3 years; p = 0.01). DISCUSSION: Patients with incidental imaging-detected asymptomatic diminutive choledocholithiasis may benefit from clinical observation, pursuing ERCP when symptoms develop.
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.