Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42443680›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026

Prophylactic biliary stenting post-ERCP prior to cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zahid Ijaz Tarar, Mustafa Gandhi, Umer Farooq, Ahmed Zain, Gopala K Konduri, Zohaib Ahmed, Baltej Singh, Steven N Steinway, Nirav Thosani

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Zahid Ijaz TararDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, School of Medicine, University of Missouri, 1 Hospital Dr, Columbia, MO, 65212, USA. drzahidejaz@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7562-7420
Mustafa GandhiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, School of Medicine, University of Missouri, 1 Hospital Dr, Columbia, MO, 65212, USA.
Umer FarooqDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Ahmed ZainDepartment of Medicine, UCHealth Parkview Medical Center, Pueblo, CO, 81003, USA.
Gopala K KonduriDivision of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.
Zohaib AhmedDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Baltej SinghDepartment of Medicine, Christiana Care Union Hospital, Elkton, MD, USA.
Steven N SteinwayDepartment of Gastroenterology, Brigham and Women Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Nirav ThosaniCenter for Interventional Gastroenterology at UTHealth (iGUT), McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimThe standard practice is to place a plastic stent in CBD after ERCP when a stone cannot be retrieved completely, but there is no clear guidance about placing the stent in patients awaiting cholecystectomy after complete stone extraction. We compared the outcomes in patients who received prophylactic biliary stenting after ERCP was performed for choledocholithiasis with those who did not receive the stent.

methodsWe searched PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane databases to identify studies that compared the outcomes of patients who received prophylactic biliary stent with no stenting after ERCP in patients with choledocholithiasis awaiting cholecystectomy. Our outcomes of interest were the odds of recurrent choledocholithiasis, repeat ERCP, cholangitis, pancreatitis, and acute cholecystitis.

resultsWe included 10 studies with 1259 patients, of which 692 received prophylactic biliary stents. A total of 32 (6.9%) cases of recurrent choledocholithiasis occurred in the stent group compared to 53 (13.9%) in the no stent group, but we found no difference in pooled odds (OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.21-1.43, I

conclusionAlthough there was no difference in the rate of recurrent choledocholithiasis between groups, prophylactic stent placement resulted in increased odds of repeat ERCP and acute cholecystitis. Based on these findings, we recommend against placing stents in post-ERCP patients awaiting cholecystectomy.

Indexed as

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeCholecystectomyCholedocholithiasisStentsCholangitisHumansPancreatitisRecurrenceAcute cholangitisAcute pancreatitisCholedocholithiasisERCPProphylactic biliary stentingSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID42443680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.