ArticleBMJ open gastroenterology2024
Optimising the indications for biliary stent placement during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a quality improvement initiative to enhance patient care and reduce healthcare resource utilisation.
Article in BMJ open gastroenterology, 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.
- Biliary stent migration after cholecystectomy following a single-preoperative ERCP: insights into real-world bile duct management.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA retrospective chart audit was performed to review biliary stent utilisation from January 2020 to January 2021. Non-guideline-based stent insertion was identified in 16% of patients with common bile duct (CBD) stones presenting for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). To improve this knowledge-practice gap, a quality improvement (QI) intervention was devised and trialled.
aimTo synchronise clinical indications for biliary stent insertion in patients with CBD stones in accordance with published guidelines.
methodsUsing a QI pre-post study design, chart audits were completed and shared with the ERCP team (n=6). Indication for biliary stent insertion was compared to published guidelines assessed by two reviewers independently (
resultsA total of 661 patients (337 F), mean age 59±19 years (range 12-98 years), underwent 885 ERCPs during this postintervention period. Of 661 patients, 384 (58%) were referred for CBD stones. A total of 192 biliary stents (105 plastic, 85 metal) were placed during the first ERCP (192/661, 29%), as compared with the preintervention year (223/598, 37%, p=0.2). Furthermore, 13/192 stents (7%) were placed not in accordance with published guidelines (
conclusionsEducation with audit and feedback supported the closing of a knowledge-to-practice gap for biliary stent insertion during ERCP, especially in patients with CBD stones. This has resulted in a notable reduction of avoidable stent placements and additional follow-up ERCPs and an overall saving of healthcare 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.