Open AccessEndoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in suspected choledocholithiasis: A systematic review
Author(s) -
Vinícius Leite de Castro,
Eduardo Guimaraes Hourneaux de MOURA,
Dalton Marques Chaves,
Wanderley Marques Bernardo,
Sérgio Matuguma,
Everson L. Artifon
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
endoscopic ultrasound
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.883
H-Index - 24
eISSN - 2303-9027
pISSN - 2226-7190
DOI - 10.4103/2303-9027.180476
Subject(s) - medicine , magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography , meta analysis , endoscopic ultrasound , randomized controlled trial , systematic review , gold standard (test) , medline , magnetic resonance imaging , radiology , prospective cohort study , predictive value , ultrasound , endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography , pancreatitis , political science , law
There is a lack of consensus about the optimal noninvasive strategy for patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Two previous systematic reviews used different methodologies not based on pretest probabilities that demonstrated no statistically significant difference between Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for the detection of choledocholithiasis. In this article, we made a comparison of the diagnostic ability of EUS and MRCP to detect choledocholithiasis in suspected patients.