Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26528503›Full record

ArticleEndoscopy international open2015

Comparison between loop-tip guidewire-assisted and conventional endoscopic cannulation in high risk patients.

Enzo Masci, Benedetto Mangiavillano, Carmelo Luigiano, Alessandra Bizzotto, Eugenio Limido, Paolo Cantù, Gianpiero Manes, Paolo Viaggi, Giancarlo Spinzi, Franco Radaelli and 4 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopy international open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01771419 (Comparison Of Loop-Tip Wire Vs Tradictional Technique In The Cannulation Of The Common Bile Duct), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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.

NCT01771419 naunknown statusnot on this map

Comparison Of Loop-Tip Wire Vs Tradictional Technique In The Cannulation Of The Common Bile Duct

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital San PaoloRan2010 to 2014Enrolled320ConditionsPost-ERCP PancreatitisArmsLoop-tip wire (Cook Medical) for the cannulation of the CBD, Cannulotome CT-25mm Cook Medical
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. 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

14 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Enzo MasciGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, San Paolo University Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Benedetto MangiavillanoGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, San Paolo University Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Carmelo LuigianoUnit of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, ARNAS Garibaldi, Catania, Italy.
Alessandra BizzottoGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, San Paolo University Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Eugenio LimidoDigestive Endoscopy Unit, Hospital of Busto Arsizio, Busto Arsizio, Varese, Italy.
Paolo CantùGastroenterology Department, University of Milan, IRCCS Fondazione Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Gianpiero ManesUnit of Digestive Endoscopy, University Hospital L. Sacco, Milan, Italy.
Paolo ViaggiGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, San Paolo University Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Giancarlo SpinziGastroenterology Unit, Valduce Hospital, Como, Italy.
Franco RadaelliGastroenterology Unit, Valduce Hospital, Como, Italy.
Alberto MarianiDivision of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Scientific Institute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Clara VirgilioUnit of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, ARNAS Garibaldi, Catania, Italy.
Angela AlibrandiDepartment of Statistics, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Pier Alberto TestoniDivision of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Scientific Institute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
University of Milan · ITOspedale Garibaldi · ITOspedale Valduce · ITVita-Salute San Raffaele University · ITLuigi Sacco Hospital · ITOspedale di Circolo di Busto Arsizio · ITUniversity of Messina · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe guidewire biliary cannulation (GWC) technique may increase the cannulation rate and decrease the risk for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. The aim of our multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial was to determine if the use of an atraumatic loop-tip guidewire reduces the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) compared with the standard contrast-assisted cannulation (CC) technique.

methodsFrom June 2012 to December 2013, a total of 320 patients who had a naïve papilla and were referred for ERCP were randomly assigned to the GWC group (n = 160) or the CC group (n = 160). GWC or CC was randomly used. In cases of failed cannulation in both arms after crossover, biliary access was attempted with alternative techniques (e. g., dual-wire technique, pancreatic duct stenting, precut).

resultsThe biliary cannulation rates were 81 % in the GWC group and 73 % in the CC group (P = n. s.). Following crossover, cannulation was successful in 8 % and 11 % of patients in the GWC and CC groups, respectively. With use of an alternative technique, the cannulation rates were 98 % in the GWC group and 96 % in the CC group, respectively. The rates of PEP were 5 % in the GWC group and 12 % in the CC group (P = 0.027). The post-interventional complication rates did not differ between the two groups.

conclusionGWC with the new wire guide is associated with a lower rate of PEP in comparison with the CC technique. Clinical trial reference number: NCT01771419.

Identifiers

PMID26528503
PMCPMC4612233
OpenAlexW2184319997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.