ArticleAdvanced biomedical research2024
A Randomized Comparative Study of the Use of Individual Modality and Combination of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and Digital Single-Operator Cholangioscopy (DSOC) for Diagnosis of Indeterminate Biliary Strictures.
Article in Advanced biomedical research, 2024. 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.
- Clinical Validation of AI-Assisted Evaluation of Indeterminate Biliary Strictures in Digital-Single Operator Cholangioscopy: A Transcontinental Multicentric Study.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Approach to Biliary Strictures.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To determine the superiority of the combination of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and digital single-operator cholangioscopy (DSOC) in the same sitting over the individual modality alone in patients with indeterminate biliary strictures. Materials and Methods: A randomized study enrolled 60 adult patients with biliary strictures who were randomized into two groups: ERCP + DSOC and ERCP/DSOC. Histopathologic or cytologic assessment was performed in terms of benign, indeterminate, or malignant nature of the strictures. Procedural adverse events were documented. Accuracy in terms of sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), and predictive value [positive (PPV) and negative (NPV)] were noted. Results: As per final diagnosis, in ERCP/DSOC group, there were 12 (40%) benign cases and 18 (60%) malignant cases, and in group ERCP + DSOC, there were 8 (26.67%) benign cases and 22 (73.33%) malignant cases. ERCP/DSOC labeled 16 (53.33%) patients as benign, 8 (26.67%) as malignant, and 6 (20%) as indeterminate, while ERCP + DSOC labeled 8 (26.67%) as benign, 17 (56.67%) as malignant, and 5 (16.67%) as indeterminate. The Sn, Sp, PPV, and NPV of ERCP/DSOC were 44.4%, 75%, 100%, and 56.25%, and for ERCP + DSOC was 77.27%, 62.50%, 100%, and 62.5%, respectively ( Conclusion: To conclude, the combination of ERCP with DSOC is safe and effective with higher diagnostic sensitivity (77.27%) in comparison to standard ERCP or DSOC alone (44.4%) for the diagnosis of biliary strictures.
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.