ArticleClinical endoscopy2025
Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage of malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Role of Endoscopy in Malignant Biliary Obstruction.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Biliary Drainage During Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer: Evidence and Practical Recommendations.Cancers · 2026Review
- Case Report: Unexpected LAMS obstruction following successful EUS-BD in a patient with pancreatic carcinoma.Frontiers in surgery · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalignant biliary obstruction is a major clinical challenge. We assessed the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) compared with that of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography biliary drainage (ERCP-BD) or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD).
methodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials comparing EUS-BD with ERCP or PTBD in treating malignant biliary obstruction. Using random-effects models, we synthesized risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A subgroup analysis was performed using a comparator (ERCP or PTBD).
resultsEUS-BD significantly reduced the risk of stent dysfunction (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33-0.64), with consistent results in subgroup analysis for ERCP (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.84) and PTBD (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.61). It also lowered the risk of post-procedure pancreatitis (RR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.07-0.83) and reduced tumor ingrowth or overgrowth risk (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11-0.65), even when compared to ERCP alone (RR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.70). EUS-BD demonstrated a lower risk of adverse events compared to PTBD (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.14-0.97) and reduced length of hospital stay (WMD, -1.03; 95% CI, -1.53 to -0.53) when compared to ERCP.
conclusionsEUS-BD outperformed ERCP-BD and PTBD in reducing stent dysfunction, postprocedural pancreatitis, and tumor ingrowth or overgrowth.
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.