ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2024
Learning curve of EUS-guided biliary duct drainage: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2024. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: In recent years, EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative to ERCP. However, a recent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials suggests comparable efficacy and safety between EUS and conventional ERCP for biliary drainage, highlighting the growing preference for EUS-BD. This study aims to contribute to this evolving landscape by investigating the technical and clinical success of EUS-BD and defining its learning curve. Methods: A comprehensive search of electronic databases was conducted from January 2003 to November 2022 for publications evaluating the learning curve of EUS-BD. Pooled proportions were calculated using both fixed-effects and random-effects models, with a 95% confidence interval. Results: The initial search yielded 380 studies, of which 88 relevant articles were reviewed. Data from 3 studies (261 patients) meeting inclusion criteria were analyzed. Proficiency in EUS-BD was achieved at 35.51 procedures. Pooled technical success was 92.45%, and clinical success was 84.84%. Adverse events occurred in 18.46% of cases, with specific rates for bleeding (4.31%), perforation (3.03%), sepsis (7.61%), procedure-related death (.31%), and all-cause mortality (2.29%). No bias was detected using the Egger bias indicator, which gave a value of -6.0 with a Conclusions: Our analysis revealed an EUS-BD proficiency at around 35 procedures, with a mean postproficiency procedure length of 68.07 minutes. Adverse events notably decrease after 66 procedures, informing a safety-driven recommendation: Endosonographers should complete a minimum of 60 supervised procedures before independent EUS-BD practice, enhancing procedural safety and proficiency.
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.