ArticleEndoscopy international open2025
Peroral cholangioscopy for detecting residual stones missed by cholangiography: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antegrade transcystic balloon dilatation in emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy with MRCP validation.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Trial
- Cholangioscopy-assisted ERCP reduces radiation exposure in treating choledocholithiasis: a retrospective IPTW-adjusted cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Balancing surgical timing and risk stratification to prevent recurrent common bile duct stones after bile duct clearance.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Residual bile duct stones may persist despite negative cholangiographic findings after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, increasing risk of recurrence and complications. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the detection rate of residual stones identified by peroral cholangioscopy (POC), alongside stone characteristics and baseline patient features. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and LILACS through August 2024. Eligible studies included patients undergoing POC after negative occlusion cholangiography. The primary outcome was the pooled residual stone detection rate. Secondary outcomes included residual stone characteristics, adverse events (AEs), and baseline clinical parameters. Subgroup analysis was performed according to cholangioscopy technique used. Results: Nine studies comprising 485 procedures were included. The pooled residual stone detection rate was 27% (95% confidence interval 23%-31%), with higher detection using digital single-operator cholangioscopy (32%) compared with direct peroral cholangioscopy (25%) and Mother-Baby systems (24%). Residual stones had a mean size of 4.51 mm, with an average of 1.55 stones per positive procedure. Mild AEs occurred in 3% of cases, with no serious complications reported. Baseline characteristics showed an average initial stone size of 12.89 mm, a mean common bile duct diameter of 15.28 mm, and lithotripsy use in 57% of cases. Conclusions: POC identified residual stones in over one-fourth of patients following negative cholangiography. Detection rates were highest with digital systems. The procedure demonstrated a strong safety profile and may play an important role in confirming complete ductal clearance.
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.