GuidelineJournal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences2026
Clinical Practice Guidelines for Peroral Cholangioscopy.
Guideline in Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences, 2026. 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.
- Clinical Utility and Safety of a Novel Ultraslim Catheter-Type Peroral Cholangioscope/Pancreatoscope: A Single-Center Case Series.DEN open · 2027Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Balloon Endoscopy-Assisted Peroral Cholangiopancreatoscopy (POCPS) Using a Novel 9Fr Cholangioscope in Patients With Surgically Altered Anatomy: A Dual-Center Retrospective Study (With Video).Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026Article
- Feasibility and Safety of Endoscopic Peroral Cholangioscopy in Surgically Altered Anatomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background/purposePeroral cholangioscopy (POCS) has emerged as a valuable endoscopic modality for the diagnosis and treatment of biliary tract diseases. Despite its growing clinical application, no standardized clinical practice guidelines have previously been established in Japan. In response, here we describe how the Japan Biliary Association (JBA) developed evidence-based guidelines to support the safe and effective implementation of POCS.
methodsFollowing the Minds 2020 methodology, a multidisciplinary committee formulated 31 key clinical, background, and future research questions across six domains: definitions, indications and roles, procedures, special cases, adverse events, and diagnostic/therapeutic outcomes. Recommendations were based on a systematic review of literature, supplemented by expert consensus where evidence was limited.
resultsKey topics include appropriate indications, management of antithrombotic therapy, necessity of papillary intervention, antibiotic prophylaxis, procedural risks, and the role of POCS-guided biopsy and lithotripsy. Notably, the guidelines highlight the utility of POCS in evaluating indeterminate biliary strictures, papillary cholangiocarcinoma, and difficult bile duct stones, while addressing adverse events such as cholangitis and perforation.
conclusionsThese guidelines are intended to serve as a practical reference for clinicians and endoscopists involved in biliary endoscopy, with the flexibility of their adaptation based on institutional practices and patient characteristics.
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.