ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2022
Performance of single-use duodenoscopes for ERCP: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Role of peroral cholangioscopy and pancreatoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of biliary and pancreatic disease: past, present, and future.Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Transmission of exogenous pathogens during ERCP because of contaminated duodenoscopes has been an emerging problem worldwide. Single-use duodenoscopes (SUDs) have been proposed as a viable alternative to mitigate this risk. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the performance characteristics, safety profile, and overall endoscopist satisfaction with the use of SUDs for ERCP. Methods: Electronic databases from 2014 through September 2022 were searched for publications addressing performance characteristics, safety profile, and overall endoscopist impression of SUDs for ERCPs. Pooled proportions were calculated using both fixed- and random-effects models. Results: Five studies comprising 420 patients were included. In these patients, 43.00% (95% confidence interval [CI], 38.32-47.75) had previous biliary or pancreatic sphincterotomy. In the pooled analysis, the ERCP completion rate with SUDs was 92.32% (95% CI, 89.60-94.67). The pooled crossover rate from SUDs to reusable duodenoscopes was 7.45% (95% CI, 5.15-10.15). After crossover, 61.85% (95% CI, 44.78-77.53) of the failed ERCPs were completed using a conventional duodenoscope. The pooled overall completion rate was 96.25% (95% CI, 93.61-98.21). The pooled estimate of endoscopist satisfaction score with SUDs was 8.32 (95% CI, 7.46-9.18) on a Likert scale of 1 to 10. Individual ERCP maneuvers were also rated on a Likert scale of 1 to 5. Overall, 29.88% of procedures (95% CI, 25.62-34.33) were grade 3 and 9.37% (95% CI, 6.78-12.34) were grade 4 according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy grade for complexity. Adverse event rates were calculated. Conclusions: Our analysis showed that SUDs deliver consistent performance across a wide range of ERCP procedures with an excellent safety profile. Although SUDs are an exciting alternative to reduce the risk of exogenous duodenoscope-related infections, further robust research is needed to clarify the most appropriate indications for their use.
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.