Trial reportCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Percutaneous Endobiliary Cryobiopsy in Biliary Obstruction: Randomised Study (BICRYOB).
Trial report in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
design and purposeTo assess feasibility and technical outcome of endobiliary cryobiopsy compared to standard technique of endobiliary forceps biopsy in randomized study. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis prospective study included 22 patients with indeterminate biliary stenosis. All patients underwent percutaneous endoluminal forceps biopsy and endoluminal cryobiopsy under the fluoroscopy guidance. The order of sample collection was randomized. The technical feasibility of cryobiopsy and the rate of serious complications were analyzed. Sensitivity in detecting malignancy, sample weight, total sample area, sample area without artifacts, and sample quality (five-point Likert scale) assessed by two certified pathologists were compared between both methods.
resultsNo CTCAE (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) v.5 grade 3-4 complications were reported during or after the procedure, and cryobiopsy was technically feasible in all patients. Three of 22 patients were excluded from the analysis. A total of 232 samples were collected (112 forceps biopsy, 120 cryobiopsy). Cryobiopsy and forceps biopsy respectively detected carcinoma in 15/19 patients and 11/19 patients in total yielding positive diagnostic histology for malignancy in 79% and 58% (p = 0.11). Among the 17 patients ultimately diagnosed with malignancy, sensitivity for cryobiopsy and forceps biopsy was 88% and 65%, respectively and overall accuracy was 89% (17/19) or cryobiopsy and 68% (13/19) for forceps biopsy. Cryobiopsy provided significantly larger total and artifact-free sample areas (median 2.66 vs 0.84 mm
conclusionCryobiopsy in the biliary tract appears to be a safe and feasible technique, allowing more representative histological samples to be obtained compared with forceps biopsy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1, Randomized trials.
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.