ArticleCureus2024
Clinical Significance and Resource Burden of Double Duct Sign in Non-jaundiced Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Ampullary carcinoma detected incidentally during ERCP: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim The study aims to determine the incidence of malignancy at presentation and subsequent risk of malignancy (at 12 months follow-up) in a cohort of patients with double duct sign (DDS) on cross-sectional imaging but no visible stigmata of jaundice. The study also correlates malignancy with liver enzyme dysfunction and estimates the resource burden incurred during the investigation of these patients. Methods A search for the key term "double duct sign" was undertaken in the radiological database of a tertiary hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) centre between March 2017 and March 2022. Radiological reports, clinic letters, blood results, and multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT) outcomes were reviewed during this period and at one year. The national tariff payment system was reviewed to identify tariffs for different investigations required for the cohort and to calculate the total cost incurred. Results Ninety-seven patients with DDS were identified. Sixty-four patients (66%) had a normal bilirubin (0-21 µmol/L) at presentation and were included in the analysis. Seven patients (10.9%) were diagnosed with malignant peri-ampullary tumours, and 21 (32.8%) were diagnosed with benign diseases. In 34 patients (53%) with DDS, the underlying cause remained uncharacterised. Most patients had mild abnormalities of liver enzymes, but two patients (4.3%) were diagnosed with malignant peri-ampullary tumours despite having normal serological values. Patients who had a benign diagnosis and/or who had cancer excluded without a definitive diagnosis did not go on to develop a malignancy at 12 months follow-up. However, in those patients where the underlying aetiology could not be characterised, extended surveillance was required with a total of 80 MDT discussions and multiple surveillance scans (103 CT and 65 MRI scans). Twenty-six patients underwent endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with three patients requiring more than one EUS examination (29 investigations in total). The cost of these investigations was £38,926.89. Conclusion This study confirms that DDS even in patients without clinical jaundice or with normal liver enzymes requires careful investigation to exclude malignancy despite the resource burden this entails. This supports previously reported results in the literature, and despite the increased use of cross-sectional imaging, DDS remains a clinically significant finding. Large cohort risk stratification studies would be useful to determine clinical urgency and allow the appropriate allocation of resources.
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.