Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26286761›Full record

ReviewViszeralmedizin2014

Antibiosis of Necrotizing Pancreatitis.

Alexander Arlt, Wiebke Erhart, Clemens Schafmayer, Hanns-Christoph Held, Jochen Hampe

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Viszeralmedizin, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alexander ArltDepartment of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
Wiebke ErhartDepartment of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
Clemens SchafmayerDepartment of General and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
Hanns-Christoph HeldDepartment of General, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Jochen HampeDepartment of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
University of Lübeck · DETU Dresden · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNecrotizing pancreatitis is a life-threatening presentation of acute pancreatitis. The mortality of 20-80% initially depends on the persistence of organ failure and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and, in the later course of the disease, on secondary infection of the necrosis. The questions whether prophylactic antibiotics aiming to prevent this infection should be administered and which antibiotic is the best to use, as well as the problem of fungal infection under antibiotic treatment are still intriguing and insufficiently solved.

methodsA search of the literature using PubMed was carried out, supplemented by a review of the programmes of the Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and the United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW).

resultsDespite the widely practised prophylactic antibiotic administration in severe pancreatitis, no evidence for the benefit of this strategy exists. One of the drawbacks might be a tendency for disastrous fungal infection under prophylactic antibiotics. Bacterial translocation from the gut in the second week after the onset of symptoms is the major source for infection of pancreatic necrosis and provides a clear indication for antibiotic treatment. However, routine fine-needle aspiration for a calculated antibiotic therapy cannot be recommended, and all other tests offer only indirect signs. Important factors such as enteral versus parenteral feeding and the method of necrosectomy are mostly neglected in the trials but seem to be essential for the outcome of the patient.

conclusionsEven though most meta-analyses including the newer double-blind, placebo-controlled trials on prophylactic antibiotics showed no beneficial effects in the prevention of infection of necrosis and/or outcome of the patients, this strategy is still widely used in clinical routine. Since nearly all trials published so far show systematic problems (i.e. inaccurate definition of the severity of the disease, poor statistical testing, and neglect of differences in the route of nutrition), there is a need for randomized controlled prospective trials with exact definitions of the disease.

Indexed as

AntibioticsFungal infectionMicrobiotaNecrotizing pancreatitis

Identifiers

PMID26286761
PMCPMC4513830
OpenAlexW1997211732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.