The i-EUS consensus on EUS-guided gallbladder drainage: A 3-step modified Delphi approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) has emerged as a viable alternative for patients with acute cholecystitis who are unfit for surgery. However, standardized guidelines for its indications, techniques, and management remain limited. The objective of this study is to develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for EUS-GBD in benign and malignant conditions, aimed at guiding clinical decision-making and improving patient outcomes. Methods: A 3-step modified Delphi process was used by the Interventional Endoscopy and Ultrasound Group, involving multidisciplinary experts in gastroenterology, surgery, and radiology. Four task forces conducted systematic literature reviews and generated PICO (Patients, Interventions, Comparator, and Outcomes)-formatted clinical questions. Evidence was graded using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system, and consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement among panelists. Results: Twenty-two clinical questions were addressed, covering indications, timing, techniques, device selection, procedural aspects, and postprocedural care for EUS-GBD. Recommendations include the preferential use of EUS-GBD over percutaneous and transpapillary approaches in high-risk patients, early intervention in select cases, the use of lumen-apposing metal stents, and tailored postprocedural strategies. All recommendations were conditional, except for one strong recommendation in favor of EUS-GBD over other modalities, supported by moderate-quality evidence. Conclusions: This consensus offers a comprehensive, multidisciplinary guideline for the safe and effective use of EUS-GBD in clinical practice. These recommendations aim to standardize care and support future research in this rapidly evolving field.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.281 | 0.275 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".