SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2025
Comparative efficacy of balloon dilatation duration on patients with choledocholithiasis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in Surgical 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the application effects of different balloon dilation durations in endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) and small endoscopic sphincterotomy with balloon dilation (ESBD) for biliary duct calculi by network meta-analysis and find the most appropriate dilation durations for both.
methodsPubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and other databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to August 2024. Data were analyzed using R (V.4.2.3) and Stata (V.17.0).
resultsA total of 12 RCTs were included, which involved 3284 patients and two treatment methods for common bile duct stones, namely ESBD and EPBD. There are ten balloon dilation durations in total. Among them, there are six balloon dilation durations (0 s, 5 s, 30 s, 60 s, 180 s, 300 s) in the ESBD group and four balloon dilation durations (20 s, 60 s, 180 s, 300 s) in the EPBD group. The network meta-analysis showed no statistical difference among different balloon dilation durations in the ESBD group. In EPBD, the 180 s group had a lower incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis than the 20 s (OR = 0.00, 95% CI = 0.00-0.11), 60 s (OR = 0.00, 95% CI = 0.00-0.06), and 300 s (OR = 0.00, 95% CI = 0.00-0.29) groups. Regarding the success rate of stone removal in EPBD, compared with the 180 s group, the success rate of stone removal in the 20 s (OR = 0.00, 95% CI = 0.00-0.60), 60 s (OR = 0.00, 95% CI = 0.00-0.28), and 300 s (OR = 0.00, 95% CI = 0.00-0.20) groups was significantly lower. The results of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve showed that 180 s was the optimal balloon dilation duration, both in ESBD and EPBD.
conclusionsThe results of network meta-analysis show that the optimal balloon dilation duration in ESBD and EPBD may be 180 s. Further direct comparison studies and longer-term follow-up are needed.
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.