MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922171571 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.062

A63 EUS-GUIDED BILIARY DRAINAGE FOR DECOMPRESSION OF MALIGNANT BILIARY OBSTRUCTION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2019· review· en· W2922171571 on OpenAlexaff
Corey Miller, Alan Barkun, Myriam Martel, Y Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic ultrasoundEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisSubgroup analysisRelative riskBiliary drainageInternal medicineConfidence intervalRadiologyGastroenterologySurgeryPancreatitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage (BD) is increasingly used for malignant distal biliary obstruction, yet its safety and efficacy are not well established, especially as a first-line modality when compared to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of EUS-BD for the treatment of malignant biliary obstruction. The literature was systematically searched through September 2018, querying Embase, MEDLINE, CENTRAL and ISI Web of Knowledge. All abstracts and fully-published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared EUS-BD to another modality for decompression of malignant biliary obstruction were included. A meta-analysis was conducted with results reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random effects model. The primary outcome of interest was comparative risk of reintervention. Prespecified subgroup analysis by comparator was performed. Initial search yielded 1264 papers. Following review, 8 trials (2 abstracts) are included that randomized 406 patients to either EUS-BD as primary treatment vs. ERCP (3 studies, n=220) or EUS-BD as rescue therapy vs. percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) (3 trials, n=132) or surgery (2 trials, n=52). Overall, EUS-BD is associated with a decreased risk for reintervention (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.32–0.71). On subgroup analysis, reintervention rates also favoured EUS-BD over ERCP (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.23–0.71) and PTBD (RR, 0.49, 95% CI, 0.28–0.88). In addition, compared to ERCP, EUS-BD is associated with decreased risk for stent dysfunction (RR, 0.52; 95% CI 0.29–0.94), tumour in/overgrowth (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05–0.69) and post-procedure pancreatitis (RR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.01–0.97). There is decreased risk of adverse events compared to PTBD (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39–0.87) but no difference was observed overall. No difference was noted in technical/clinical success overall or in the subgroup analyses. No significant heterogeneity or publication bias was noted. In a meta-analysis of RCTs, EUS-BD is associated with similar technical/clinical success as other drainage modalities including ERCP. It is, however, associated with decreased risk for reintervention, stent tumor in/overgrowth, and post-procedure pancreatitis, suggesting a promising role as a first-line modality for malignant distal biliary obstruction. None

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersFrench-language works237,207