ArticleClinical endoscopy2025
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography biliary drainage in the palliative management of malignant distal biliary obstruction: an updated 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 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.
- Clinical vulnerability to chemotherapy in cholangiocarcinoma: impact of nutritional status, frailty, and systemic inflammation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes and Complications of Endoscopic Biliary Stenting for Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction in Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
BACKGROUND/
aimsEvidence suggests comparable outcomes between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in the biliary drainage of malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the EUS with ERCP in the management of MDBO.
methodsWe performed a literature search using the Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases, including randomized controlled trials comparing EUS and ERCP in patients with MDBO. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model using the STATA ver. 17.0 software.
resultsBoth procedures were comparable in technical (risk ratio [RR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-1.30) and clinical (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.85-1.41) success. No difference was identified in total adverse events (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.42-1.35), acute cholangitis (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.43-1.62), stent patency (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.87-1.46) and mean stent patency time (mean difference, -0.01; 95% CI: -0.21 to 0.19). ERCP was associated with a higher risk of procedure-related pancreatitis (RR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.04-0.68) and statistically non-significant higher risk for reintervention (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37-1.01).
conclusionsAlthough EUS and ERCP were comparable in terms of efficacy and safety, ERCP was associated with a higher risk of procedure-related pancreatitis and reintervention, with the latter finding not reaching statistical significance.
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.