MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392782502 · doi:10.1055/a-2271-2145

Outcomes predictors in endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy with lumen-apposing metal stent: Systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· article· en· W4392782502 on OpenAlexaff
Alessandro Fugazza, Kareem Khalaf, Marco Spadaccini, Antonio Facciorusso, Matteo Colombo, Marta Andreozzi, Silvia Carrara, Cecilia Binda, Carlo Fabbri, Andrea Anderloni, Cesare Hassan, Todd H. Baron, Alessandro Repici

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy International Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic ultrasoundLumen (anatomy)Meta-analysisRadiologyStentSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and study aims EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) is a minimally invasive procedure used to treat malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) by transduodenal placement of a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) into the extrahepatic bile duct. To identify factors that contribute to safe and effective EUS-CDS using LAMS, we performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Methods The methodology of our analysis was based on PRISMA recommendations. Electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, EMBASE) were searched up to November 2022. Full articles that included patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-CDS using LAMS after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography were eligible. Random-effect meta-analysis was performed reporting pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, and adverse events (AEs) by means of a random model. Multivariate meta-regression and subgroup analysis were performed to assess possible associations between the outcomes and selected variables to assess the correlation between outcomes and different variables. Results were also stratified according to stent size. Results Twelve studies with 845 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled technical and clinical success rates were 96% (95% confidence interval [CI] 94%-98%; I2 = 52.29%) and 96% (95%CI 95%-98%), respectively, with no significant association with baseline characteristics, such are sex, age, common bile duct diameter, or stent size. The pooled AE rate was 12% (95%CI: 8%-16%; I2 = 71.62%). The AE rate was significantly lower when using an 8 × 8 mm stent as compared with a 6 × 8 mm LAMS (odds ratio 0.59, 0.35–0.99; P = 0.04), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Conclusions EUS-CDS with LAMS is a safe and effective option for relief of MBO. Selecting an appropriate stent size is crucial for achieving optimal safety outcomes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.038
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndoscopy International OpenSame topicGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersFrench-language works237,207