Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39439478›Full record

ReviewJGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology2024

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) hepaticogastrostomy (HGS) versus choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) in ERCP-failed malignant biliary obstruction: A systematic review and META-analysis.

Chrisandi Y Rizqiansyah, Putu I D Awatara, Nasim Amar, Cosmas R A Lesmana, Syifa Mustika

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. International Consensus Statements on Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage: Results From the 1st JGES International in 2025.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    Article
  2. Role of Endoscopy in Malignant Biliary Obstruction.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Chrisandi Y RizqiansyahInternal Medicine Department Faculty of Medicine Universitas Brawijaya, Saiful Anwar General Hospital Malang Indonesia.
Putu I D AwataraFaculty of Medicine Universitas Brawijaya Malang Indonesia.
Nasim AmarFaculty of Medicine Universitas Brawijaya Malang Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3268-5134
Cosmas R A LesmanaHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo National General Hospital, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia Jakarta Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8218-5971
Syifa MustikaInternal Medicine Department Faculty of Medicine Universitas Brawijaya, Saiful Anwar General Hospital Malang Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4831-2719

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the gold standard in managing malignant biliary obstruction. The success of ERCP has limitations, whereas surgical biliary bypass and percutaneous transhepatic approaches, as alternative modalities, come with significant costs, longer durations, and higher levels of mortality and morbidity. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided biliary drainage with two approaches, hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) and choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), is a favored and evolving alternative modality. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-HGS and EUS-CDS. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Scholar databases up to August 2023, based on the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. We identified randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing the efficacy and safety of EUS-HGS and EUS-CDS. Outcome measures included technical and clinical success, side effects, and mean procedure time. Nine nonrandomized studies and two randomized controlled trials involving 537 patients (225 EUS-HGS, 312 EUS-CDS) were analyzed. No difference was found in technical success (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.41-1.68;

Indexed as

choledochoduodenostomyendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography failurehepaticogastrostomy

Identifiers

PMID39439478
PMCPMC11494398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.