Endoscopic ultrasound-guided vs endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography biliary drainage for obstructed distal malignant biliary strictures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

doi:10.4253/wjge.v11.i4.281

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 11, Issue 4

This Article

(331)

(309)

(0)

(9)

(2)

(9162)

(30)

Peer-Review Report of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

ISSN

1948-5190

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

- Full Article with Cover (PDF)
- Full Article (XML)

Meta-Analysis

World J Gastrointest Endosc. Apr 16, 2019; 11(4): 281-291
Published online Apr 16, 2019. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i4.281

Table 3 Quality (certainty) of evidence of the studies selected, as determined by the GRADE criteria

Parameter	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Publication bias	Overall certainty of evidence
No. of patients (studies)	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Publication bias	Overall certainty of evidence
Technical success
222 (3 RCTs)	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	Serious^a	None	Moderate
Clinical success
155 (2 RCTs)	Serious^b	Not serious	Serious^c	Serious^a	None	Very low
Procedure duration
222 (3 RCTs)	Not serious	Very serious^d	Serious^e	Serious^a	None	Very low
Adverse events
222 (3 RCTs)	Not serious	Very serious^d	Not serious	Serious^a	None	Very low
Stent patency
97 (2 RCTs)	Serious^b	Not serious	Serious^e	Serious^a	None	Very low
Stent dysfunction
155 (2 RCTs)	Not serious	Not serious	Serious^e	Not serious	Strongly suspected	Low

^aNo significant difference found. ^bIncomplete outcome data in one study. ^cStudies used different criteria for clinical success. ^dI² > 75%. ^eOutlier identified. RCTs: Randomized clinical trials.

Full Size Table

Citation: Logiudice FP, Bernardo WM, Galetti F, Sagae VM, Matsubayashi CO, Madruga Neto AC, Brunaldi VO, de Moura DTH, Franzini T, Cheng S, Matuguma SE, de Moura EGH. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided vs endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography biliary drainage for obstructed distal malignant biliary strictures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 11(4): 281-291
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v11/i4/281.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v11.i4.281

Logiudice FP, Bernardo WM, Galetti F, Sagae VM, Matsubayashi CO, Madruga Neto AC, Brunaldi VO, de Moura DTH, Franzini T, Cheng S, Matuguma SE, de Moura EGH. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided vs endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography biliary drainage for obstructed distal malignant biliary strictures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 11(4): 281-291 [PMID: 31040889 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i4.281]

All content on this site: Copyright © 1993-2026 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, its licensors, and contributors. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. For all open access content, the relevant licensing terms apply.