SynthesisUnited European gastroenterology journal2026
EUS-Guided Choledochoduodenostomy Versus Hepaticogastrostomy in Case of Concomitant Gastric Outlet Obstruction Treated by EUS-Guided Gastroenterostomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in United European gastroenterology journal, 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
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBiliary (BO) and gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) frequently complicate pancreatic cancer, often delaying treatment. While EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is preferred over duodenal stenting for GOO, the optimal approach for biliary drainage (BD) between EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) and hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) remains undefined. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify the preferred BD strategy in patients undergoing EUS-GE for concurrent GOO and BO.
methodsWe searched Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE up to February 2026. Studies were eligible if they reported outcomes of EUS-CDS or EUS-HGS in patients with malignant BO and concomitant GOO treated by EUS-GE. Outcomes included technical and clinical success, stent dysfunction, and adverse events (AEs) analyzed using a random-effects model. Results were reported as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsFive studies were included (128 patients; 45.5% female; mean age range 63.0-73.0 years), with 61 undergoing EUS-CDS and 67 undergoing EUS-HGS. Four studies were European, one American, and one prospective. Technical and clinical success rates were similar between groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83-1.11; I
conclusionsEUS-CDS and EUS-HGS appear similarly safe and effective for managing malignant BO with concomitant GOO. However, EUS-CDS carries a significantly higher risk of stent dysfunction, potentially delaying critical cancer treatment.
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.