You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
EUS versus MRCP in patients with intermediate risk of choledocholithiasis: clinical and statistical viewpoint
  1. Anurag Sachan,
  2. Harshal S Mandavdhare
  1. Gastroenterology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
  1. Correspondence to Dr Harshal S Mandavdhare, Gastroenterology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh 160012, India; hmandavdhare760{at}gmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2022-327239

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We read with great interest the study by Jagtap et al and commend the authors on this large randomised controlled study that compared endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) as a screening modality before ERCP in patients with intermediate risk of choledocholithiasis as per the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines.1 The authors concluded that EUS and MRCP did not differ in sensitivity or specificity when compared with ERCP taken as gold standard. We would like to bring forward few concerns regarding the study.

    First, the data regarding the baseline cholelithiasis status …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @DrAnuragSachan

    • Contributors AS: manuscript preparation and concept. HSM: manuscript preparation and critical review.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.