ReviewCurrent treatment options in gastroenterology2016
Preventing Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: Update 2016.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Uncovered versus fully-covered self-expandable metal stents for nonpancreatic cancer: Propensity score-matched, multicenter study.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Breaking age barriers: the efficacy of ERCP in advanced age patients.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Real-world evidence comparing early and late pancreatic stent placement to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Comparison of one-stage treatment versus two-stage treatment for the management of patients with common bile duct stones: A meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
- The Effect of Preoperative Biliary Drainage with or without Pancreatic Stenting on Complications after Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.BioMed research international · 2021Article
- Pancreatic stenting to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis: a randomized multicenter trial.Endoscopy international open · 2019Article
- Use of Nasopancreatic Drainage for Severe Post-endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Case Series.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.