ReviewClinical endoscopy2025
Peroral cholangioscopy: past, present and future.
Review in Clinical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel sheath system to improve target access for preoperative mapping biopsy: A randomized trial to inform surgical planning.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Trial
- Clinical Utility and Safety of a Novel Ultraslim Catheter-Type Peroral Cholangioscope/Pancreatoscope: A Single-Center Case Series.DEN open · 2027Article
- Feasibility of ex vivo single-operator cholangioscopy in liver grafts.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Utility of Digital Single-Operator Cholangioscopy for Risk-Enriched Detection and Surveillance of Intraductal Neoplasms of the Bile Duct: SPY-SCREEN Study (with Videos).Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Observational
- Predictive factors for the necessity of peroral cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy in the endoscopic treatment of cystic duct confluence stones: a retrospective study in Japan.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Cholangioscopy-guided ERCP: expanding diagnostic and therapeutic applications.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the gold standard for the evaluation of biliary strictures and the management of bile duct stones. However, standard ERCP techniques sometimes fail for both indications. In such situations, peroral cholangioscopy (POCS), which allows direct visualization of the bile duct, can play a significant role in diagnosis and treatment. Direct visualization using POCS can help differentiate between malignant and benign conditions and is more accurate in defining the extent of cholangiocarcinoma. Furthermore, POCS enables visually guided biopsies. Certain types of difficult bile duct stones, such as impacted and intrahepatic stones, require POCS for visually guided lithotripsy. Recent advancements in POCS will broaden its applicability and improve its diagnostic utility. In this review, we provide perspectives on the past, present, and future of POCS.
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.