Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24949339›Full record

ReviewEndoscopic ultrasound2012

Pancreatic fluid collection drainage by endoscopic ultrasound: new perspectives.

Stephen R Rotman, Michel Kahaleh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Endoscopic ultrasound, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Stephen R RotmanDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Weill Cornell Medical College, Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY 10021, USA.
Michel KahalehDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Weill Cornell Medical College, Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY 10021, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the introduction of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), many centers have utilized this imaging modality for transmural pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) drainage. The expanded use of EUS has resulted in increased safety and efficacy of endoscopic PFC drainage. The major procedural steps include EUS-guided transgastric or transduodenal fistula creation into the PFC, and stent placement or nasocystic drain deployment to decompress the collection. In this and other applications, EUS has become a major therapeutic advancement in the field of endoscopy and has figured in myriad diagnostic applications. Recent research indicates a number of situations in which EUS-guided PFC drainage is appropriate. These include unusual location of the collection, small window of entry, non-bulging collections, coagulopathy, intervening varices, or failed conventional transmural drainage. In this study, we discuss the EUS-guided technique and review current literatures.

Indexed as

endoscopic ultrasoundnon-bulging pancreatic fluid collectionpancreatic fluid collectionpancreatic pseudocyst

Identifiers

PMID24949339
PMCPMC4062209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.