SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Research progress on the classification and clinical response strategies for "complex ductoscopy operating procedure".
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically review the literature on ductoscopy-related operative failures, establish a classification system for "Complex Ductoscopy Operating Procedure (CDOP)", and propose standardized clinical response strategies. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library was conducted for publications from January 1991 to July 2026. Causes of ductoscopy failure were extracted, categorized, and quantitatively summarized. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated. Based on literature evidence and accumulated clinical experience, a standard CDOP-PFN (Passing, Finding, Non-discharge) classification system and stepwise clinical management framework were developed. Results: From 25 included studies (2,853 procedures), meta-analysis showed a pooled failure rate of 10.0% (95%CI: 6.8%-13.7%; 95% PI: 0.0%-31.4%) with high heterogeneity (I² = 87.1%). Primary causes were ductal perforation (22.5%), ductal stenosis (21.9%), and nipple deformity/retraction (12.1%). Failures were stratified into three major types (PFN): (i) presence of nipple discharge with inability to access the ductal system via ductoscopy (type P, passing); (ii) bloody discharge with failure to identify intraductal lesions (type F, finding); and (iii) absence of spontaneous discharge but ultrasonographic evidence of ductal dilatation and intraductal lesions (type N, non-discharge). For each type, a tiered strategy was formulated, incorporating pre-procedural evaluation, duct entry optimization, image-guided localization, troubleshooting, and surgical approaches when needed. Conclusion: The proposed CDOP-PFN classification and management framework standardizes the recognition and handling of complex ductoscopy operating scenarios. These strategies may reduce dependency on individual operator experience, improve procedural standardization and safety, enhance diagnostic yield for intraductal lesions, and advance minimally invasive breast disease management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.