Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39549140›Full record

ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports2025

Endoscopic Gallbladder Drainage EUS LAMS vs. ERCP Trans-papillary Drainage.

Maham Hayat, Yasi Xiao, Mustafa A Arain, Dennis Yang

Abstract readReviewComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current gastroenterology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Maham HayatCenter for Interventional Endoscopy, AdventHealth, 601 E Rollins St, Orlando, FL, 32803, USA.
Yasi XiaoCenter for Interventional Endoscopy, AdventHealth, 601 E Rollins St, Orlando, FL, 32803, USA.
Mustafa A ArainCenter for Interventional Endoscopy, AdventHealth, 601 E Rollins St, Orlando, FL, 32803, USA.
Dennis YangCenter for Interventional Endoscopy, AdventHealth, 601 E Rollins St, Orlando, FL, 32803, USA. Dennis.Yang.MD@Adventhealth.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewIn this review, we discuss the role of endoscopic gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis in non-surgical candidates, describe technical aspects, clinical outcomes, and elaborate on considerations when determining which approach to adopt for a given patient. RECENT

findingsCholecystectomy remains the criterion standard for management of acute cholecystitis in patients who can safely undergo surgery. For non-surgical candidates, percutaneous cholecystostomy (PTC-GBD) has been the traditional strategy to drain and decompress the gallbladder. Advances in endoscopy have further expanded the nonsurgical interventions and approaches to cholecystitis. Both endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ET-GBD) and endoscopic ultrasound guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) have become acceptable alternatives to PTC-GBD, with growing literature supporting their efficacy, safety and improved patient quality of life when compared to a percutaneous approach. Choosing the appropriate endoscopic technique for gallbladder drainage should be tailored to each patient, keeping in view the specific clinical scenarios, endoscopist preference and following a multi-disciplinary approach.

Indexed as

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeCholecystitis, AcuteDrainageEndosonographyCholecystostomyHumansUltrasonography, InterventionalAcute CholecystitisEUS-guided gallbladder drainageGallbladder drainageTranspapillary drainage

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.