Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND Recurrence of common bile duct (CBD) stones after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an important clinical problem, with incidence rates varying from 4% to 24%.Identifying risk factors for recurrence can guide surveillance strategies and preventive interventions.AIM To identify independent risk factors for recurrence of CBD stones after successful ERCP stone clearance and to develop and validate a practical clinical risk-scoring model for individualized prediction of post-ERCP stone recurrence.METHODS In this single-center retrospective cohort, 412 patients underwent ERCP for CBD stones at The People's Hospital of Rongchang Chongqing between January 1, 2018, and January 28, 2023.Recurrence was defined as a new stone detected at least 6 months after documented complete ductal clearance.The specified recurrence observation horizon was 42 months after clearance.The original manuscript reported logistic regression and a seven-factor score; time-to-event reanalysis and complete model validation remain pending source-data verification. RESULTSAmong the 412 included patients, 89 (21.6%) were reported to have recurrent stones during follow-up (reported median 38.4 months).The manuscript previously reported cumulative recurrence estimates of 9.2%, 15.8%, and 19.7% at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively; these estimates require verification against patient-level event and censoring dates.The original multivariable results and reported model area under the 4 / 28 curve (0.814) likewise require re-estimation after correction of gallbladder-status data.No 42-month cumulative incidence can be established from the available aggregate tables. CONCLUSIONStone recurrence after ERCP was reported in 89 of 412 patients.The proposed sevenfactor scoring framework has been made mathematically reproducible, but its coefficients, risk-group recurrence estimates, calibration, and time-to-event performance require verification and external validation before clinical use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: