Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24944985›Full record

ReviewClinical endoscopy2014

Endoscopic drainage of pseudocysts.

Tae Jun Song, Sang Soo Lee

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical endoscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collection, using a modified technique of cystotome alone without a FNA needle.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
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

2 authors.

Tae Jun SongDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Sang Soo LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the last decade, great progress has been made in minimally invasive endoscopic techniques. For pancreatic pseudocysts (PPCs), endoscopic drainage has become the first-line therapeutic option. Recent advances in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-related techniques have focused on EUS-guided transmural drainage, which is now replacing the conventional endoscopy-guided transmural drainage. While transmural drainage is usually performed using multiple plastic stents with or without a nasocystic drain, fully covered self-expandable metal stents are now being used with increasing frequency. In this review, we discuss some of the controversies related to the endoscopic drainage of PPCs.

Indexed as

DrainageEndoscopyEndosonographyPancreatic pseudocyst

Identifiers

PMID24944985
PMCPMC4058539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.