Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2025
Efficacy and safety of three methods of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in removing small common bile duct stones: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled study.
Trial report 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), common bile duct stones (CBDSs) can be removed through strategies, including endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD), and endoscopic sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation (ESBD). By comparing the efficacy and safety of these three methods, we aimed to determine the optimal technique for the removal of small CBDSs (≤ 10 mm in size).
methodsThis was a multicenter, prospective, parallel controlled study involving patients with small CBDSs undergoing ERCP in three tertiary medical institutions in Jiangsu Province, China, who were randomly divided into the EST group, EPBD group, and ESBD group. The efficiencies of these three techniques were compared by analyzing the first-session and overall success rates of stone removal and the use of endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy (EML). Their safety was compared by measuring the incidences of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and other adverse events.
resultsA total of 350 patients were enrolled. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to the EST group (n = 116), EPBD group (n = 118), and ESBD group (n = 116). Sex, median age, number, and median size of small CBDSs were comparable. The first-session (all > 97%) and overall success rates of stone removal (all 100%) were high. No significant difference was detected in the incidence of EML (all < 1%). The incidences of PEP (all < 6%), bleeding, perforation, infection, and hyperamylasemia were low in all three groups, with no significant among-group differences.
conclusionEST, EPBD, and ESBD all exhibit excellent efficacy and safety in the removal of small CBDSs. EPBD is recommended as the optimal method for removing small CBDSs due to its simple procedures, functional preservation of the sphincter of Oddi, and fewer long-term complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41044282What 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.