ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2025
Efficacy and safety of single use duodenoscopes in comparison to reusable duodenoscopes for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A single center experience.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle-use duodenoscopes (SDs) were introduced to eliminate exogenous infection risks post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).
aimTo evaluate their efficacy and safety against reusable duodenoscopes (RDs).
methodsThis was a single-center case control study. All consecutive patients undergoing ERCP using SD between 2020 and 2023 were enrolled. A similar number of patients undergoing ERCP using RD were randomly selected and enrolled. In case of ERCP failure using SD, operators switched to a RD if judged appropriate. The primary outcome was successful ERCP completion rates. The secondary outcomes were rate of difficult biliary cannulation, incidence of crossover from SD to RD, procedure related adverse events, 30-day re-admission rate, and endoscopists' assessment of SD's performance.
resultsA total of 133 patients were enrolled (
conclusionThe novel SDs demonstrated no difference in efficacy and safety compared to conventional RDs when used to perform a wide range of ERCPs. Nevertheless, further development and study of SDs' financial and environmental effectiveness is warranted.
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.