ArticleCureus2024
Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound and Transabdominal Ultrasound in the Detection of Gallbladder and Common Bile Duct Microlithiasis.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk Factors and Predictive Modeling of Occult Choledocholithiasis in Patients with Cholecystolithiasis.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2026Article
- 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
- Necrotic pancreatitis: modern approaches to the prevention of infected necrosis.Frontiers in medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEndoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is an emerging method with a wide range of potential uses in gastroenterology, including the detection of bile duct stones and the identification of early ductal alterations in suspected patients. This study was designed to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS and transabdominal ultrasound (TUS) in the detection of gallbladder and common bile duct (CBD) microlithiasis.
methodPatients with biliary colic with normal initial TUS were the subjects of this prospective study. EUS scan was performed on all recruited patients and linear endoscopes were used for the EUS examination. Cholecystectomy and histological analysis were done in patients within two weeks after EUS revealing cholelithiasis whereas the cases of CBD stone/microlithiasis were confirmed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The mean values of all hematological characteristics were independently determined for males and females and then compared using Student's t-test. For statistical significance, a p-value of 0.05 or below was used.
resultsA total of 131 patients, including 77 females and 54 males, with a mean age of 38.41 ± 14.78 years were examined. All 78 (59.5%) individuals who had cholecystectomy were found to have gallstones or microlithiasis as successfully diagnosed by EUS. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS were 92.9% and 100%, respectively, for CBD stones and 98.8% and 100%, respectively, for the detection of gallbladder microlithiasis. The agreement between EUS and TUS was fair for CBD stones (κ = 0.214) and very weak for microlithiasis (κ = -0.093).
conclusionEUS demonstrates a superior yield over TUS in detecting gallbladder stones and CBD microlithiasis, offering a more reliable diagnostic modality. LIMITATION: This was a single-center study.
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.