Table 1.
Main characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis
| Studies | Bories et al.[14] | Bapaye et al.[15] | Lu et al.[16] | Artifon et al.[17] | Bill et al.[18] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study type | A multileft RCT (France) | A single-left retrospective cohort study (India) | Single-left comparative study (China) | Single-left prospective RCT (Brazil) | Single-left retrospective comparative study (USA) |
| Mean age of population (years)±SD | 62.5±8.5 versus58.8±9.95 | 59.9±13.3 versus 62.4±10.2 | 68±13.5 | 63.4±10 versus 71 | 66.5±12.6 |
| Male: female population ratio | NA | 1.08 versus 1.6 | NA | 2.25 versus2 | 1.2 versus 1.8 |
| Total preprocedure bilirubin (mean), mg/dl | NA | 7.11±7.6 versus 9.41±12.4 | NA | 16.4 versus 17.2 | 10.85 versus 13.24 |
| Mean bile duct diameter | NA | NA | NA | 13.7 versus 11.9 | NA |
| Bile duct obstruction etiology | |||||
| Ampullary adenocarcinoma | NA | 5 versus 3 | NA | 1 versus 0 | 3 versus 3 |
| Pancreatic carcinoma | NA | 15 versus 18 | NA | 10 versus 6 | 20 versus 20 |
| Cholangiocarcinoma | NA | 2 versus 2 | NA | 1 versus 1 | 2 versus 2 |
| Gallbladder cancer | NA | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 |
| Plasmacytoma | NA | 0 | NA | 1 versus 0 | 0 |
| Advanced lymphoma/liposarcoma | NA | 0 | NA | 0 versus 1 | 0 |
| Duodenal carcinoma | NA | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 |
| Gastric cancer | NA | 0 | NA | 0 versus 1 | 0 |
| Metastatic cancer | NA | 0 | NA | 0 versus 3 | 1 versus 5 |
| Reason for failed ERCP | |||||
| Altered anatomy | NA | 9 | NA | 1 | NA |
| Inability of cannulation | NA | 42 | NA | 16 | 16 versus 9 |
| Indwelling duodenal stent | NA | 16 | NA | 0 | NA |
| Stomach/duodenal invasion | NA | 32 | NA | 8 | 18 versus 7 |
| NOS/MJS score | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 |
|
| |||||
| Studies | Khashab et al.[19] | Giovannini et al.[10] | Lee et al.[20] | Huang et al.[21] | Sharaiha et al.[11] |
|
| |||||
| Study type | Single-left retrospective cohort comparative study (USA) | Multileft randomized controlled phase II trial (France) | Multileft prospective randomized controlled phase II trial (South Korea) | Single-left retrospective comparative study (USA) | A single-left retrospective cohort study (USA) |
| Mean age of population (years)±SD | 64.9±12.5 versus66.9±12.5 | NA | 66.5 versus 68.4 | 68.9±4.62 versus 64±6.86 | 68.7±13.9 versus 58.8±13.6 |
| Male: female population ratio | 1.2 versus 1.31 | 0.91 versus 9 | 3.25 versus 3 | 2.27 versus 2 | 12 versus 1.47 |
| Total pre- and postprocedure bilirubin (mean), mg/dl | 15.8±11.3 versus 14.5±8.8 | NA | 10.4 versus 11.8 | 338.54±167.73 versus 142.43±65.64 | NA |
| Mean bile duct diameter | NA | NA | 11.22 versus 12.6 | NA | |
| Bile duct obstruction etiology | |||||
| Ampullary adenocarcinoma | 3 | NA | 1 versus 0 | 4 versus 2 | 3 |
| Pancreatic carcinoma | 43 | NA | 12 versus 12 | 10 versus 8 | 22 |
| cholangiocarcinoma | 12 | NA | 7 versus 14 | 22 versus 20 | 9 |
| Gallbladder cancer | 0 | NA | 5 versus 5 | NA | 0 |
| Plasmacytoma | 0 | NA | 0 | NA | 0 |
| Advanced lymphoma/liposarcoma | 1 | NA | 0 | NA | 0 |
| Duodenal carcinoma | 1 | NA | 3 versus 0 | NA | 5 |
| Gastric cancer | 1 | NA | 3 versus 2 | NA | 4 |
| Metastatic cancer | 12 | NA | 3 versus 1 | NA | 7 |
| Reason for failed ERCP | |||||
| Altered anatomy | 0 | NA | 12 versus. 10 | NA | NA |
| Inability of cannulation | 0 | NA | 0 | NA | NA |
| Indwelling duodenal stent | 0 | NA | 0 | NA | NA |
| Stomach/duodenal invasion | 0 | NA | 22 versus 22 | 2 versus 4 | NA |
| NOS/MJS score | 8 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
SD: Standard deviation; NOS: Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale; MJS: Modified Jadad Score; RCT: Randomized controlled trial; NA: Not applicable