ArticleCancer management and research2026
Common Bile Duct Diameter in Bladder Urothelial Carcinoma: A Case-Control Study.
Article in Cancer management and research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although sporadic case reports have suggested an association between bladder urothelial carcinoma and common bile duct (CBD) dilation, no comprehensive study has investigated this association. This study aimed to compare CBD size in patients with urothelial carcinoma and matched controls. Methods: In this retrospective case-control study, we analyzed 63 patients diagnosed with urothelial carcinoma alongside a control group of 63 individuals who were matched for age, gender distribution, smoking habits, and opium use. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from patient records. An experienced radiologist who was blinded to the study objectives measured the diameter of the CBD using CT scans. Results: The mean CBD diameter was larger in patients with urothelial carcinoma compared with the control group (6.81±2.77 vs 5.40±1.43, p = 0.004). Furthermore, individuals with tumor recurrence (8.58±3.45 vs 6.15±2.17, p = 0.005) or metastases (8.35±4.16 vs 6.52±2.38, p = 0.049) exhibited significantly higher CBD diameters compared with those without. However, regression analysis identified tumor recurrence (OR=7.63 [1.64-35.60]) and abnormal CRP (OR=9.85 [1.46-66.62]) as the only significant risk factors for abnormal CBD diameter. Conclusion: Patients with urothelial carcinoma demonstrated larger CBD diameters than matched controls, with greater dilation observed among those with tumor recurrence. These findings suggest a potential association between urothelial carcinoma and CBD diameter; however, given the observational design and limited sample size, the results should be considered exploratory and hypothesis-generating. Further large-scale prospective studies are required to validate these findings, clarify underlying mechanisms, and determine their clinical significance.
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.