SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2024
Efficacy and safety of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage in the treatment of advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC 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.
- Predicting unplanned extubation risk in patients with endoscopic nasobiliary drainage.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Current Perspectives on Endoscopic Nasobiliary Drainage: Optimizing Patient Management and Preventing Complications.Journal of clinical 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of Endoscopic Nasobiliary Drainage (ENBD) and Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangiography Drainage (PTCD) in patients with advanced Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) through a meta-analysis of clinical studies.
methodsWe searched Chinese and English databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, for relevant literatures on PTCD and ENBD for advanced HCCA clinical trials. Two investigators independently screened the literatures, and the quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The primary endpoint was the success rate of biliary drainage operation, while secondary endpoints included Total Bilirubin (TBIL) change, acute pancreatitis, biliary tract infection, hemobilia, and other complications. R software was used for data analysis.
resultsA comprehensive database search, based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, yielded 26 articles for this study. Analysis revealed that PTCD had a significantly higher success rate than ENBD [OR (95% CI) = 2.63 (1.98, 3.49), Z=6.70, P<0.05]. PTCD was also more effective in reducing TBIL levels post-drainage [SMD (95%CI) =-0.13 (-0.23, -0.03), Z=-2.61, P<0.05]. While ENBD demonstrated a lower overall complication rate [OR (95%CI) = 0.60 (0.43, 0.84), Z=-2.99, P<0.05], it was associated with a significantly lower incidence of post-drainage biliary hemorrhage compared to PTCD [OR=3.02, 95%CI: (1.94-4.71), Z= 4.89, P<0.01].
conclusionsThis meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of ENBD and PTCD for palliative treatment of advanced HCCA. While both are effective, PTCD showed superiority in achieving successful drainage, reducing TBIL, and lowering the incidence of acute pancreatitis and biliary infections. However, ENBD had a lower risk of post-drainage bleeding. Clinicians should weigh these risks and benefits when choosing between ENBD and PTCD for individual patients. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and explore long-term outcomes.
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.