Skip to main content
. 2020 Jul 9;9(5):298–307. doi: 10.4103/eus.eus_10_20

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics and quality of included studies

Study Design Males, n (%) Age (years) Overall survival (days) EUS-BD modality ERCP stent type EUS stent Quality of study
Bang RCT EUS: 33 (51.5) 69.4 190 EUS-CDS Fully-covered SEMS SEMS Low quality (high risk of performance bias, low risk of selection, detection, attrition, or reporting bias)
ERCP: 34 (67.6) 69.2 174
Park RCT EUS: 14 (64.29) 65.4 188 EUS-CDS Partially-covered SEMS SEMS Low quality (high risk of performance bias, low risk of selection, detection, attrition, or reporting bias)
ERCP: 14 (57.14) 66.8 197
Paik RCT EUS: 64 (64.06) 64.8 144 EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS SEMS (uncovered, partially/fully covered) SEMS Low quality (high risk of performance bias, low risk of selection, detection, attrition, or reporting bias)
ERCP: 61 (42.62) 68.4 178
Nakai Prospective cohort EUS: 34 (53) 79 249 EUS-CDS SEMS (unspecified covering) SEMS High quality
ERCP: 25 (48) 69 216
Kawakubo Retrospective EUS: 26 (30.8) 71 296 EUS-CDS SEMS (uncovered, partially/fully covered) SEMS High quality
ERCP: 56 (53.6) 68 156

RCT: Randomized controlled trials; SEMS: Self-expanding metal stents; BD: Biliary drainage; CDS: Choledochoduodenostomy; HGS: Hepaticogastrostomy.