ArticleEndoscopy international open2026
Endosonography-guided choledochoduodenostomy using a lumen apposing metal stent vs. ERCP: Individual patient data and aggregate meta-analyses.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2026. 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.
- Malignant Double Obstruction: How Can Advanced Endoscopy Help?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
33 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy using a lumen-apposing metal stent (EUS-CDSL) has been shown in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to be effective compared with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with advanced malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). We aimed to further ascertain safety of EUS-CDSL with greater statistical power. Patients and methods: We undertook individual patient data (IPD) and aggregate meta-analyses following the PRISMA-IPD statement. A literature search was performed from January 2013 to November 2024 using OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Science. Additional searches were performed for abstracts and the gray literature. RCTs comparing EUS-CDSL with ERCP were included. The primary outcome was odds of 30-day procedure related adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included procedure-related 14-day severe or fatal AEs, technical success, clinical success, stent dysfunction, and procedure time. Results: A total of 2679 citations were screened with three RCTs included (519 patients). The odds ratios (ORs) for 30-day AEs between EUS-CDSL and ERCP were similar (OR 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-1.16). There was also no significant difference in severe or fatal AEs (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.22-1.83). The ORs for technical success were greater for EUS-CDSL (OR 4.22, 95% CI 2.35-7.61) with shorter procedure time (mean difference -10.50 minutes (95% CI -15.28 to -5.73). No significant differences were noted in clinical success or stent dysfunction. Conclusions: Our IPD meta-analysis demonstrates safety of EUS-CDSL as a first-line alternative to ERCP in MDBO and dilated biliary tree. In addition, EUS-CDSL is associated with higher technical success and shorter procedure time.
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.