Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27037206›Full record

ArticleHPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association2016

Thirty-day outcomes underestimate endocrine and exocrine insufficiency after pancreatic resection.

Pei-Wen Lim, Kate H Dinh, Mary Sullivan, Wahid Y Wassef, Jaroslav Zivny, Giles F Whalen, Jennifer LaFemina

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency After Pancreatectomy for Malignancy: Systematic Review and Optimal Management Recommendations.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. A Clinical Guide to the Management of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms: the Need for a More Graded Approach in Clinical Decision-making.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Unpaid Caregiving: What are the Hidden Costs?Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Exocrine and endocrine functions and pancreatic volume in patients with pancreatic trauma.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

7 authors.

Pei-Wen LimDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Kate H DinhDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Mary SullivanDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Wahid Y WassefDepartment of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Jaroslav ZivnyDepartment of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Giles F WhalenDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Jennifer LaFeminaDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. Electronic address: jennifer.lafemina@umassmemorial.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLong-term incidence of endocrine and exocrine insufficiency after pancreatectomy is poorly described. We analyze the long-term risks of pancreatic insufficiency after pancreatectomy.

methodsSubjects who underwent pancreatectomy from 2002 to 2012 were identified from a prospective database (n = 227). Subjects who underwent total pancreatectomy or pancreatitis surgery were excluded. New post-operative endocrine and exocrine insufficiency was defined as the need for new pharmacologic intervention within 1000 days from resection.

results28 (16%) of 178 subjects without pre-existing endocrine insufficiency developed post-operative endocrine insufficiency: 7 (25%) did so within 30 days, 8 (29%) between 30 and 90 days, and 13 (46%) after 90 days. 94 (43%) of 214 subjects without pre-operative exocrine insufficiency developed exocrine insufficiency: 20 (21%) did so within 30 days, 29 (31%) between 30 and 90 days, and 45 (48%) after 90 days. Adjuvant radiation was associated with new endocrine insufficiency. On multivariate regression, pancreaticoduodenectomy and chemotherapy were associated with a greater risk of exocrine insufficiency.

conclusionReporting 30-day functional outcomes for pancreatic resection is insufficient, as nearly 45% of subjects who develop disease do so after 90 days. Reporting of at least 90-day outcomes may more reliably assess risk for post-operative endocrine and exocrine insufficiency.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overChemotherapy, AdjuvantDatabases, FactualExocrine Pancreatic InsufficiencyFemaleHumansHypoglycemic AgentsIslets of LangerhansMaleMiddle AgedPancreas, ExocrinePancreatectomyPancreatic NeoplasmsPancreaticoduodenectomyHypoglycemic Agents

Identifiers

PMID27037206
PMCPMC4814621

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.