Table 5.
Diagnostic performance of ASGE guidelines.
| Authors, year of publication | Place, duration | Study type | Study aim | Participant characteristics | Results | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sethi et al., 20153 | One centre; Boston, MA, USA, 2011–2012 | Prospective observational cohort study | To assess accuracy of ASGE criteria | All patients referred for ERCP in unit with clinical suspicion for choledocholithiasis. 336 participants, 244 high-risk group, 92 intermediate | High risk: 185 (75.8%) had stones, intermediate: 45 (48.9%) | High-risk group: sens. 80.43%, spec. 44.34%, accur. 69.05% |
| Adams et al., 201518 | One centre; MI, USA, 2007–2012 | Retrospective cohort study | To test ASGE guidelines accuracy; impact of laboratory trends; predictors | Patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. 498 participants, 179 high-risk group; 319 intermediate or low | High-risk group: 99 (55.3%) with stones/sludge on MRC/EUS/ERCP; intermediate or low: 111 (34.8%) | High-risk group: sens. 47.7%, spec. 73%, accur. 62.1% |
| Magalhães et al, 201516 | One centre; Portugal, 2010–2013. | Retrospective study | To evaluate practical applicability of ASGE guidelines; different combination of predictors | Patients referred for ERCP for suspected bile duct lithiasis. 268 participants; 193 high risk, 73 intermediate, 2 low | High risk: 154 (79.8%) with stones; intermediate 25 (34.2%); low 0 | High-risk group (calculated): sens. 86.0%, spec. 56.1%, accur. 76.1% |
| Prachayakul et al., 201419 | One centre; Thailand, 2009–2012 | Retrospective study | To determine diagnostic yield and optimal timing of EUS in patients <…> requiring therapeutic ERCP | Patients with suspected choledocholithiasis who underwent EUS. 93 participants, 44 high-risk group, 49 intermediate | High risk: 17 (38.63%) had stones, intermediate 11 (22.44%) | High-risk group (calculated): sens. 60.7%, spec. 58.5%, accur. 59.1% |
| Suarez et al., 201620 | One centre; Charleston, SC, USA, 2009–2014 | Retrospective study | To evaluate performance characteristics of ASGE guidelines and to determine impact of laboratory trends | Patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. 173 participants, 71 high risk, 102 intermediate or low risk | High-risk group 39 (54.9%) had stones, intermediate or low risk 32 (31.4%) | High-risk group: sens. 54.9%, spec. 68.6%, accur. 63% |
| He et al., 201721 | One centre; Zhejiang, China, 2011–2013 | Retrospective study | To determine whether ASGE guidelines or other predictors can accurately identify patients with high risk of choledocholithiasis | Patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. 2724 participants, 1171 high-risk group, 1252 intermediate, 301 low | Calculated from performance: High-risk group 737 (62.9%) had stones, intermediate or low risk 316 (20.3%) | High-risk group: sens. 70%, spec.74%, accur. 72.5% |
| Rubin et al. 201317 | Two hospitals; Houston, TX, USA, 2007–2010 | Retrospective study | To assess validity and accuracy of current ASGE guidelines on choledocholithiasis | Patients who underwent ERCPs for suspected or confirmed choledocholithiasis 521 participants; 264 high risk, 249 intermediate, 8 low | High-risk group 189 (71.6%) had stones, intermediate 102 (41%), low 2 (25%) | High-risk group (calculated): sens. 64.5%, spec. 67.1%, accur. 65.6% |
ASGE: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; ERCP: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; sens.: sensitivity; spec.: specificity; accur.: accuracy; EUS: endoscopic ultrasonography; MRC: magnetic resonance cholangiography; USA: United States of America.