Extension usage examples:
Here's how our browser extension sees the article:
先天性胆道扩张术后肝内胆管结石的当前治疗策略：单中心回顾性研究 - PubMed
Source: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Article summary:
1. This retrospective study examined the current treatment strategies for intrahepatic bile duct stones (IHBD) after congenital biliary dilatation surgery.
2. Treatment strategies included oral ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), double-balloon enteroscopy retrograde cholangiography (DB-ERC), percutaneous transhepatic cholangiodrainage (PTCD), and open surgery.
3. The results showed that UDCA may be effective for small stones, while DB-ERC may not be feasible due to long jejunal loops and can cause pancreatitis. Open surgery was ultimately performed in three patients, with one patient diagnosed with hepatic stone disease and adenocarcinoma who underwent left lobectomy and died of cancerous peritonitis.
Article analysis:
This article is a retrospective study examining the current treatment strategies for intrahepatic bile duct stones (IHBD) after congenital biliary dilatation surgery. The authors provide a detailed description of their methods, results, and conclusions, which makes it easy to assess the trustworthiness and reliability of the article. The authors have provided sufficient evidence to support their claims, such as ultrasound findings in a case where an IHBD stone disappeared with oral UDCA, DB-ERC findings and acute pancreatitis after intervention, and enhanced abdominal CT scans showing decreased enhancement and swelling of the pancreatic tail 1 day after DB-ERC.
The article does not appear to be biased or one-sided in its reporting; it presents both sides equally by providing evidence for both successful treatments as well as unsuccessful ones. It also does not contain any promotional content or partiality towards any particular treatment strategy; instead, it provides an unbiased overview of all available treatment options. Furthermore, possible risks associated with each treatment are noted throughout the article.
In conclusion, this article is trustworthy and reliable due to its detailed description of methods used, evidence provided to support claims made, unbiased reporting of both successful and unsuccessful treatments, lack of promotional content or partiality towards any particular treatment strategy, noting of possible risks associated with each treatment option, and equal presentation of both sides without favoring either side more than the other.