MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402315930 · doi:10.1186/s12876-024-03397-3

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage in the treatment of advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4402315930 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Huiling Zhou, Chunxia Liu, Xianhuan Yu, Mingye Su, Jing-Wen Yan, Xiangde Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Gastroenterology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBasic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceNatural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province
KeywordsMedicineHepatologyDrainagePercutaneousMeta-analysisInternal medicineBiliary drainageGeneral surgeryGastroenterologyRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of Endoscopic Nasobiliary Drainage (ENBD) and Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangiography Drainage (PTCD) in patients with advanced Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) through a meta-analysis of clinical studies. METHODS: We searched Chinese and English databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, for relevant literatures on PTCD and ENBD for advanced HCCA clinical trials. Two investigators independently screened the literatures, and the quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The primary endpoint was the success rate of biliary drainage operation, while secondary endpoints included Total Bilirubin (TBIL) change, acute pancreatitis, biliary tract infection, hemobilia, and other complications. R software was used for data analysis. RESULTS: A comprehensive database search, based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, yielded 26 articles for this study. Analysis revealed that PTCD had a significantly higher success rate than ENBD [OR (95% CI) = 2.63 (1.98, 3.49), Z=6.70, P<0.05]. PTCD was also more effective in reducing TBIL levels post-drainage [SMD (95%CI) =-0.13 (-0.23, -0.03), Z=-2.61, P<0.05]. While ENBD demonstrated a lower overall complication rate [OR (95%CI) = 0.60 (0.43, 0.84), Z=-2.99, P<0.05], it was associated with a significantly lower incidence of post-drainage biliary hemorrhage compared to PTCD [OR=3.02, 95%CI: (1.94-4.71), Z= 4.89, P<0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of ENBD and PTCD for palliative treatment of advanced HCCA. While both are effective, PTCD showed superiority in achieving successful drainage, reducing TBIL, and lowering the incidence of acute pancreatitis and biliary infections. However, ENBD had a lower risk of post-drainage bleeding. Clinicians should weigh these risks and benefits when choosing between ENBD and PTCD for individual patients. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and explore long-term 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GastroenterologySame topicGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersFrench-language works237,207