SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided versus percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage in surgically high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) has been the conventional non-operative option for acute cholecystitis in patients at high surgical risk, but endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) with lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) is increasingly preferred because it removes the external catheter. We compared the two techniques, with device- or drainage-related unplanned readmission-the outcome specified in our public registration-as the primary endpoint.
methodsFour bibliographic databases and two trial registries were searched from inception to 31 January 2026, with the search updated to 30 July 2026. 6 comparative studies were included (one randomized trial and five observational cohorts; 712 patients, EUS-GBD 322 and PTGBD 390). Odds ratios (OR) were pooled with random-effects restricted maximum likelihood (REML) models using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment, with leave-one-out and method-sensitivity analyses and GRADE assessment. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework before data extraction.
resultsThe primary outcome was reported at the patient level in three studies. Device- or drainage-related unplanned readmission occurred in 14/200 (7.0%) of EUS-GBD patients versus 91/245 (37.1%) of PTGBD patients. Every contributing study favoured EUS-GBD and each study-level interval excluded unity, but the pooled Hartung-Knapp interval did not (OR 0.098, 95% CI 0.008-1.22; I
conclusionsIn surgically high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis, EUS-GBD achieved clinical success and mortality comparable to PTGBD, with a small and consistent numerical reduction in technical success, and with a device-related readmission burden that was lower in every contributing study but not robustly lower on pooled analysis. The present evidence does not establish EUS-GBD as a universally superior first-line replacement for PTGBD. Adequately powered randomized trials using standardized, patient-level endpoints and longer follow-up are required.
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.