Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42677752›Full record

ArticleJournal of digestive diseases

Outcomes of Different Guidewire-Assisted Techniques for Recurrent Malignant Biliary Obstruction After Uncovered Metallic Stent Placement.

Qiao Feng Chen, Zi Hang Xu, You Hua Wang, Zhen Zhen Yang, Shi Yu Zhang, Ya Wei Xing, Guo Hua Li, You Xiang Chen, Xiao Jiang Zhou, Jun Bo Hong

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of digestive diseases. 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

10 authors.

Qiao Feng ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Digestive Diseases, Jiangxi Clinical Research Center for Gastroenterology, Digestive Disease Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6717-0125
Zi Hang XuJiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6249-8276
You Hua WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Digestive Diseases, Jiangxi Clinical Research Center for Gastroenterology, Digestive Disease Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China.
Zhen Zhen YangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Digestive Diseases, Jiangxi Clinical Research Center for Gastroenterology, Digestive Disease Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China.
Shi Yu ZhangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Digestive Diseases, Jiangxi Clinical Research Center for Gastroenterology, Digestive Disease Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China.
Ya Wei XingDepartment of Gastroenterology, Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Digestive Diseases, Jiangxi Clinical Research Center for Gastroenterology, Digestive Disease Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China.
Guo Hua LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Digestive Diseases, Jiangxi Clinical Research Center for Gastroenterology, Digestive Disease Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China.
You Xiang ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Digestive Diseases, Jiangxi Clinical Research Center for Gastroenterology, Digestive Disease Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4218-6133
Xiao Jiang ZhouDepartment of Gastroenterology, Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Digestive Diseases, Jiangxi Clinical Research Center for Gastroenterology, Digestive Disease Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China.
Jun Bo HongDepartment of Gastroenterology, Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Digestive Diseases, Jiangxi Clinical Research Center for Gastroenterology, Digestive Disease Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China.

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province 20232BAB216016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of the bent guidewire insertion (BGI) technique and the conventional straight guidewire insertion (SGI) technique for managing recurrent malignant biliary obstruction (RMBO) after initial uncovered metallic stent (UMS) placement.

methodsNinety patients who underwent endoscopic intervention for RMBO after UMS placement were retrospectively included. Clinical outcomes and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related factors were compared between the SGI and BGI groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the independent risk factors associated with difficult cannulation.

resultsThere were 43 and 47 patients who underwent the SGI and BGI techniques, respectively, for intervention of RMBO. The SGI group had significantly higher rates of difficult cannulation (48.8% vs. 19.1%, p = 0.006) and guidewire insertion technique transformation (44.2% vs. 4.3%, p < 0.001). Additionally, procedure time (49.7 min ± 23.4 min vs. 34.7 min ± 20.5 min, p = 0.002) and cannulation time (5.0 min vs. 4.0 min, p = 0.005) were longer in the SGI group. Technical and clinical success rates, procedure-related complications, and length of hospitalization were comparable between the two groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that SGI (odds ratio [OR] 4.682, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.643-13.340, p = 0.004) and hilar biliary tract lesions (OR 3.673, 95% CI 1.236-10.915, p = 0.019) were identified as independent factors for difficult biliary cannulation.

conclusionBGI technique may be superior to SGI approach for re-intervention in patients with RMBO after initial UMS placement.

Indexed as

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeCholestasisStentsAgedCatheterizationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcomecannulationguidewire insertion techniquemalignant biliary obstructiontreatment outcomeuncovered metallic stent

Identifiers

PMID42677752
PMCPMC13555321

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.