ArticleANZ journal of surgery2026
Diagnostic Guidelines for the Evaluation of Choledocholithiasis in Patients With Acute Biliary Presentations: A Study of Their Applicability and Feasibility in a Publicly Funded Healthcare System.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe American and European Societies of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE and ESGE) have published diagnostic guidelines for the evaluation of choledocholithiasis. The applicability and feasibility of these guidelines in a publicly funded health care system, such as ours in Aotearoa New Zealand, are not known. This retrospective study compared the diagnostic performance and utility of these guidelines against our current approach to biliary investigations to explore the feasibility of their local implementation.
methodsWe identified patients with biliary diagnosis during 2017 from admission records. We retrospectively applied the diagnostic criteria of the ASGE 2010, ASGE 2019 and ESGE 2019 guidelines to classify patients as low, intermediate or high risk for choledocholithiasis, and to determine their management if the guidelines were followed. We estimated the diagnostic performance of the guidelines using ERCP or IOC as gold standard. The simulated volume and diagnostic yield of biliary investigations according to guidelines were compared to those observed with our current approach.
resultsWe included 621 patients, of whom 18% had choledocholithiasis. For diagnosing choledocholithiasis, ASGE 2010, ASGE 2019 and ESGE 2019 guidelines had sensitivities of 79%, 68% and 57% and specificities of 93%, 96% and 97% respectively, if only patients classified as high risk were considered. If patients classified as high or intermediate risk were both considered, their sensitivities increased to > 99% at the expense of lower specificities of 20%-30%. The AUCs for the guidelines were 0.88, 0.85 and 0.83, respectively. When compared to our current approach to biliary investigations, guideline adoption would double MRCP utilisation with correspondingly decreased diagnostic yield.
conclusionBoth ASGE and ESGE guidelines for choledocholithiasis may increase the volume of biliary investigations without delivering better diagnostic performance than an ad hoc approach to biliary investigations. Guideline adoption in their current forms cannot be justified in our publicly funded system in Aotearoa New Zealand. Possible contributors to poor guideline performance have been proposed and these will require further research to guide adaptation of the guidelines for our local use.
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.