ArticleSurgical endoscopy2011
Predictors of complications after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prognostic model for early discharge.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Synergistic effect of independent risk factors for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a multicenter retrospective study in Japan.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Acute pancreatitis and biliary obstruction from metastatic lymph node compression during [Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Determining the Risk Factors of Complications Due to Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.Cureus · 2024Article
- Risk factors for ERCP-related complications and what is the specific role of ASGE grading system.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2023Article
- Comparison of one-stage treatment versus two-stage treatment for the management of patients with common bile duct stones: A meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
- Current approaches and questions yet to be resolved for the prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Review
- Disease-Based Risk Stratification of Postendoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis for Common Bile Duct Stones.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Article
- When to Discharge a Patient After Endoscopy: A Narrative Review.Clinical endoscopy · 2022Review
- The milestone for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis using novel simplified predictive scoring system: a propensity score analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Pancreatic Duct Variations and the Risk of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis.Cureus · 2020Review
- Preliminary Report of Percutaneous Cholecystostomy as Diagnosis and Treatment of Biliary Tract Trauma.World journal of surgery · 2018Article
- ERCP PERFORMANCE IN A TERTIARY BRAZILIAN CENTER: FOCUS ON NEW RISK FACTORS, COMPLICATIONS AND QUALITY INDICATORS.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2018Observational
- Unnecessary preoperative biliary drainage: impact on perioperative outcomes of resectable periampullary tumors.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2017Article
- Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: Risk factors and predictors of severity.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2016Article
- Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related perforation: Management and prevention.World journal of clinical cases · 2014Review
- Risk factors for therapeutic ERCP-related complications: an analysis of 2,715 cases performed by a single endoscopist.Annals of gastroenterology · 2014Article
- Quality evaluation through self-assessment: a novel method to gain insight into ERCP performance.Frontline gastroenterology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral studies have evaluated predictors for complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but their relative importance is unknown. In addition, currently used blood tests to detect post-ERCP pancreatitis are inconsistent. The aim of this study was to determine predictors of post-ERCP complications that could discriminate between patients at highest and lowest risk of post-ERCP complications and to develop a model that is able to identify patients that can safely be discharged shortly after ERCP.
methodsIn a single-center, retrospective analysis over the period 2002-2007, predictors of post-ERCP complications were evaluated in a multivariable analysis and compared with those identified from a literature review. A prognostic model was developed based on these risk factors, which was further evaluated in a prospective patient population.
resultsFrom our retrospective analysis and literature review, we selected the eight most important risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis and cholangitis. In the prognostic model, the risk factors (precut) sphincterotomy, sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, younger age, female gender, history of pancreatitis, pancreas divisum, and difficult cannulation accounted for a score of 1 each, whereas primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) accounted for a score of 2. A sum score of 4 or more in the prognostic model was associated with a high risk of developing pancreatitis and cholangitis (27%; 6/22) in the prospective patient population, whereas a sum score of 3 or less was associated with a low to intermediate risk (8%; 20/252).
conclusionsWe identified specific patient- and procedure-related factors that are associated with post-ERCP complications. The prognostic model based on these factors is able to identify patients who can be safely discharged the same day after ERCP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.