Success Metrics

Clinical Success Rate
100.0%

Based on 1 completed trials

Completion Rate
100%(1/1)
Active Trials
2(67%)
Results Posted
0%(0 trials)

Phase Distribution

Ph not_applicable
2
67%
Ph phase_4
1
33%

Phase Distribution

0

Early Stage

0

Mid Stage

1

Late Stage

Phase Distribution3 total trials
Phase 4Post-market surveillance
1(33.3%)
N/ANon-phased studies
2(66.7%)

Highest Phase Reached

Phase 4

Trial Status & Enrollment

Completion Rate

100.0%

1 of 1 finished

Non-Completion Rate

0.0%

0 ended early

Currently Active

2

trials recruiting

Total Trials

3

all time

Status Distribution
Active(2)
Completed(1)

Detailed Status

Recruiting2
Completed1

Development Timeline

Analytics

Development Status

Total Trials
3
Active
2
Success Rate
100.0%
Most Advanced
Phase 4

Trials by Phase

Phase 41 (33.3%)
N/A2 (66.7%)

Trials by Status

recruiting267%
completed133%

Recent Activity

2 active trials
Showing 3 of 3
recruitingphase_4

Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Holmium Laser Lithotripsy Versus Electrohydraulic Lithotripsy for the Treatment of Difficult Choledocholithiasis and Pancreatic Duct Stones

NCT07418112
recruitingnot_applicable

Laser vs Electrohydraulic Lithotripsy for Difficult CBD Stones

NCT07030829
completednot_applicable

Electrohydraulic Versus Laser Lithotripsy for Treatment of Difficult to Remove Biliary Stones

NCT01571271

Clinical Trials (3)

Showing 3 of 3 trials
NCT07418112Phase 4

Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Holmium Laser Lithotripsy Versus Electrohydraulic Lithotripsy for the Treatment of Difficult Choledocholithiasis and Pancreatic Duct Stones

Recruiting
NCT07030829Not Applicable

Laser vs Electrohydraulic Lithotripsy for Difficult CBD Stones

Recruiting
NCT01571271Not Applicable

Electrohydraulic Versus Laser Lithotripsy for Treatment of Difficult to Remove Biliary Stones

Completed

All 3 trials loaded

Drug Details

Intervention Type
DEVICE
Total Trials
3