ArticleBMC surgery2025
Breaking age barriers: the efficacy of ERCP in advanced age patients.
Article in BMC surgery, 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.
- Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a wireless intelligent endoscopic system versus a conventional wired system: a retrospective study.BMC surgery · 2026Trial
- Effect of exercise prescription intervention mode in the Omaha System in elderly patients with delayed gastric emptying after choledocholithiasis surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients aged 75 years and older.
methodsA total of 723 patients who underwent ERCP at Anhui Provincial Corps Hospital of the Chinese People's Armed Police Force between March 2018 and April 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. This cohort included 152 patients aged ≥ 75 years (elderly group) and 571 patients aged < 75 years (control group). A 1:1 propensity score matching method was used to match the baseline characteristics of gender, stone number, and stone size between the two groups to obtain a covariate balanced sample, resulting in 152 successfully matched cases. Data on comorbidities, surgical procedures, clinical outcomes, and ERCP-related complications were collected and compared between the two groups.
resultsThe elderly cohort exhibited a significantly higher prevalence of comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, abnormal liver function, and cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases, when compared to the control group (p < 0.05). The primary indication for ERCP in both groups was choledocholithiasis. However, the elderly group had a notably higher incidence of a history of cholecystolithiasis and cholecystectomy (p < 0.05). The stone removal success rate was 95.39% (145/152) in both groups, and the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 1). The rate of postoperative complications was 11.84% (18/152) in the elderly group and 18.42% (28/152) in the control group, with no significant difference observed (P = 0.11). Both groups demonstrated an improvement in quality of life scores following ERCP, with the elderly group showing significantly higher scores compared to the control group (p < 0.05). Long-term follow-up revealed that the recurrence of choledocholithiasis and cholangitis increased over time in the elderly group; however, no significant difference in recurrence rates was noted between the two groups (P > 0.05).
conclusionsERCP is a safe and effective therapeutic approach for elderly patients with choledocholithiasis, associated with a low incidence of complications and favorable clinical outcomes. Given its efficacy and safety profile, ERCP should be considered a treatment of choice for elderly individuals with choledocholithiasis.
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.