Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26091462›Full record

ArticleMedicine2015

Classification and Management of Pancreatic Pseudocysts.

Gang Pan, Mei Hua Wan, Kun-Lin Xie, Wei Li, Wei-Ming Hu, Xu-Bao Liu, Wen-Fu Tang, Hong Wu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Turkish Society of Gastroenterology: Pancreas Working Group, Acute Pancreatitis Committee Consensus Report.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gang PanFrom the Department of Liver Surgery (GP, K-LX, WL, HW); Department of Pancreatic Surgery (MHW, W-FT); Department of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine (W-MH, X-BL), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Mei Hua Wan
Kun-Lin Xie
Wei Li
Wei-Ming Hu
Xu-Bao Liu
Wen-Fu Tang
Hong Wu
Fairmount Technologies (United States) · US

Funding

Delivering Geospatial Intelligence to Health Care ProfessionalsR01LM010923 · NLM · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI DOWNS, STEPHEN M. · 2011 to 2013
$1.0M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM010923
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article aims to elucidate the classification of and optimal treatment for pancreatic pseudocysts. Various approaches, including endoscopic drainage, percutaneous drainage, and open surgery, have been employed for the management of pancreatic pseudocysts. However, no scientific classification of pancreatic pseudocysts has been devised, which could assist in the selection of optimal therapy. We evaluated the treatment modalities used in 893 patients diagnosed with pancreatic pseudocysts according to the revision of the Atlanta classification in our department between 2001 and 2010. All the pancreatic pseudocysts have course of disease >4 weeks and have mature cysts wall detected by computed tomography or transabdominal ultrasonography. Endoscopic drainage, percutaneous drainage, or open surgery was selected on the basis of the pseudocyst characteristics. Clinical data and patient outcomes were reviewed. Among the 893 patients, 13 (1.5%) had percutaneous drainage. Eighty-three (9%) had type I pancreatic pseudocysts and were treated with observation. Ten patients (1%) had type II pseudocysts and underwent the Whipple procedure or resection of the pancreatic body and tail. Forty-six patients (5.2%) had type III pseudocysts: 44 (4.9%) underwent surgical internal drainage and 2 (0.2%) underwent endoscopic drainage. Five hundred six patients (56.7%) had type IV pseudocysts: 297 (33.3%) underwent surgical internal drainage and 209 (23.4%) underwent endoscopic drainage. Finally, 235 patients (26.3%) had type V pseudocysts: 36 (4%) underwent distal pancreatectomy or splenectomy and 199 (22.3%) underwent endoscopic drainage. A new classification system was devised, based on the size, anatomical location, and clinical manifestations of the pancreatic pseudocyst along with the relationship between the pseudocyst and the pancreatic duct. Different therapeutic strategies could be considered based on this classification. When clinically feasible, endoscopic drainage should be considered the optimal management strategy for pancreatic pseudocysts.

Indexed as

Digestive System Surgical ProceduresDrainageFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPancreatic PseudocystPostoperative ComplicationsTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID26091462
PMCPMC4616556
OpenAlexW2315807084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.