Meta-analysis comparison of endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy

doi:10.3748/wjg.v19.i24.3883

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 19, Issue 24

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation 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

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (6563)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, HTML series, Figures (1-6) series, Tables (1-1) series.

Item

Count

PDF

499

HTML

3996

Figures (1-6)

133

Tables (1-1)

142

Sum=4770

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

934

Download

859

Sum=1793

Jun 28, 2013 (publication date) through Apr 17, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (52)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

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

Meta-Analysis

World J Gastroenterol. Jun 28, 2013; 19(24): 3883-3891
Published online Jun 28, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i24.3883

Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure

Figure 1 Comparison of total clearance of common bile duct stones between endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (experimental group) and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy (control group). EPBD: Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation; EST: Endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy.

Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure

Figure 2 Incidence of pancreatitis (A) and bleeding (B) between endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy. EPBD: Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation; EST: Endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy.

Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure

Figure 3 Overall incidence of long-term complications (A) and bile duct stone recurrence rate (B) between endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy. EPBD: Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation; EST: Endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy.

Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure

Figure 4 Incidence of bile duct stone recurrence rate between endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy with a follow-up of more than one year. EPBD: Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation; EST: Endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy.

Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure

Figure 5 Funnel plot analysis of included studies. X-axis [Peto odds ratio (OR)] represents treatment effects. Y-axis (log[Peto OR]) represents the large sample size. Each square represents an individual study. The dashed line represents 95%CI.

Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure

Figure 6 Risk of bias summary (A) and bias assessment for each individual study (B).

Citation: Zhao HC, He L, Zhou DC, Geng XP, Pan FM. Meta-analysis comparison of endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19(24): 3883-3891
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v19/i24/3883.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v19.i24.3883