Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23532001›Full record

ArticlePancreas2013

Risk models for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP): smoking and chronic liver disease are predictors of protection against PEP.

Matthew J DiMagno, Joshua P Spaete, Darren D Ballard, Erik-Jan Wamsteker, Sameer D Saini

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pancreas, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Predictive models for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Preventing Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: Update 2016.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Matthew J DiMagnoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. mdimagno@umich.edu
Joshua P Spaete
Darren D Ballard
Erik-Jan Wamsteker
Sameer D Saini

Funding

Inflammatory response to pancreatitis in CF mice: sodium & impaired apoptosisK08DK073298 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI DIMAGNO, MATTHEW J · 2006 to 2010
$716k
Pioglitazone Therapy for Endocrine and Exocrine Disease in Alcoholic PancreatitisR21AA017271 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI DIMAGNO, MATTHEW J · 2008 to 2009
$406k
NIAAA NIH HHS R21 AA017271NIDDK NIH HHS K08 DK073298
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe investigated which variables independently associated with protection against or development of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) and severity of PEP. Subsequently, we derived predictive risk models for PEP.

methodsIn a case-control design, 6505 patients had 8264 ERCPs, 211 patients had PEP, and 22 patients had severe PEP. We randomly selected 348 non-PEP controls. We examined 7 established- and 9 investigational variables.

resultsIn univariate analysis, 7 variables predicted PEP: younger age, female sex, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD), pancreatic sphincterotomy, moderate-difficult cannulation (MDC), pancreatic stent placement, and lower Charlson score. Protective variables were current smoking, former drinking, diabetes, and chronic liver disease (CLD, biliary/transplant complications). Multivariate analysis identified seven independent variables for PEP, three protective (current smoking, CLD-biliary, CLD-transplant/hepatectomy complications) and 4 predictive (younger age, suspected SOD, pancreatic sphincterotomy, MDC). Pre- and post-ERCP risk models of 7 variables have a C-statistic of 0.74. Removing age (seventh variable) did not significantly affect the predictive value (C-statistic of 0.73) and reduced model complexity. Severity of PEP did not associate with any variables by multivariate analysis.

conclusionsBy using the newly identified protective variables with 3 predictive variables, we derived 2 risk models with a higher predictive value for PEP compared to prior studies.

Indexed as

AdultCase-Control StudiesCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeChronic DiseaseFemaleHumansLiver DiseasesMaleMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalMultivariate AnalysisPancreatitisPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID23532001
PMCPMC3701741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.