ArticleEndoscopy international open2026
Quantitative mechanical profiling of 12 ERCP guidewires: Toward evidence-based device selection.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Numerous guidewires are available for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and interventional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), each with distinct mechanical characteristics. Although individual features such as tip flexibility or shaft stiffness have been studied, no prior research has comprehensively compared multiple guidewires. This study aimed to quantitatively and visually characterize mechanical properties of guidewires using a standardized bench-top evaluation framework. Methods: Twelve guidewires available in Japan were tested. Seven mechanical parameters were assessed: tip load, maximum tip load, front and rear shaft stiffness, torque performance, whip performance, and radiographic visibility. All tests were conducted under standardized conditions using dedicated equipment. Performance scores were normalized (1-10 scale), and radar charts were generated for visualization. Results: Guidewires showed wide variability across parameters. Tip load ranged from 0.026 ± 0.029 to 0.114 ± 0.025 N; maximum tip load from 0.180 ± 0.040 to 0.697 ± 0.059 N. Shaft stiffness ranged from 0 to 0.343 ± 0.006 N (front) and 0.057 ± 0.006 to 0.477 ± 0.006 N (rear). Torque deviation ranged from 19.6 ± 16.7° to 41.0 ± 23.8°; whip performance from 13.5 ± 0.6 to 163.4 ± 77.6 °/sec. Radiographic contrast ranged from 292.7 to 1125.4. Values are mean ± SD unless otherwise stated; radiographic contrast was measured once. Radar chart shapes were classified into four types: bowl, rightward, leftward, and upward. Radar chart visualization revealed distinct mechanical profile patterns among guidewires. Conclusions: This was the first study to provide integrated mechanical profiles of ERCP and EUS guidewires based on standardized bench-top testing. Radar chart visualization offers an intuitive framework for comparing relative mechanical tendencies and may serve as a useful reference for research and education.
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.