ArticleDEN open2026
Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-guided Biliary Drainage with Duckbill-type Anti-reflux Metal Stent versus Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Hepaticogastrostomy for Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction in Pancreatic Cancer with Duodenal Invasion.
Article in DEN open, 2026. 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.
- Article
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Duodenal invasion is a risk factor for early recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) due to the increased risk of duodenobiliary reflux. Transpapillary biliary drainage using anti-reflux metal stents (ARMS) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) are two different strategies for this condition. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed unresectable pancreatic cancer (PC) patients with duodenal invasion who underwent either transpapillary biliary drainage using duckbill-type ARMS (D-ARMS) or EUS-HGS for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). Technical and clinical success, causes of RBO, non-RBO adverse events (AEs), time to RBO (TRBO), and endoscopic reintervention (ERI) were compared between groups. Results: Forty-four patients were included (D-ARMS: 22, EUS-HGS: 22). Technical and clinical success rates, and non-RBO AE rates (9.1% vs. 36.4%, Conclusions: Transpapillary biliary drainage using D-ARMS may be a viable option in managing MDBO with duodenal invasion, especially for non-high-volume centers, when both procedures are technically feasible.
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.