Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27349659›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in gastroenterology2016

Preventing Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: Update 2016.

Martin L Freeman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Martin L FreemanDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, MMC 36, 406 Harvard Street SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. freem020@umn.edu.
University of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinion statementPost-ERCP remains a major challenge, although significant progress has been made in predicting risk and methods of prevention. Facets of post-ERCP pancreatitis can be divided into the four "P's": they are patient-related factors, procedure-related factors, pancreatic stents, and pharmacoprophylaxis. New information about risk factors includes a description of IPMN as a patient-related risk, with smoking and chronic liver disease as protective factors. Procedure-related factors include one or more deep passages of a guidewire into the pancreatic duct as a salient risk, perhaps outweighing difficult cannulation or contrast injection, but one that can be mitigated by placement of a pancreatic stent. In addition, placement of transpapillary metallic stents has emerged as an independent risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Although there has been a rising wave of enthusiasm for rectal NSAIDs as a kind of panacea for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis, the newest data question their efficacy in unselected cohorts. Pancreatic stent placement remains the most proven and reliable method of preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in both mixed- and high-risk ERCP. Success at placement of protective pancreatic stents is a paramount for safety and efficacy, and technical expertise at placing pancreatic stents widely among centers. The use of specialized techniques including very small caliber guidewires and stents is necessary to approach 100 % success.

Indexed as

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDS)Pancreatic stentPost-ERCP pancreatitis

Identifiers

PMID27349659
OpenAlexW2470474379

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.